Luke 2:1-20

This passage occurs as the Gospel for Christmas Eve in all three lectionary cycles.

Summary:  I have no desire to summarize the meaning of the incarnation in Luke's Gospel.  This passage has layers and layers of meaning for us to draw on this year and every year.  I offer this as a way to hopefully point toward something in the passage that can help launch your reflection and preaching.

Words I found interesting (if you like timelines and Roman history, you can go to the end):

Translation Issues - Ancient and New - that might actually be sermon worthy

καταλυματι  ("inn", 2:7)  "There was no room for them in the inn."  This word actually has been retranslated in the NRSVUE -- "inn" is out and "guest room" is in.  Before you decide this is blasphemy, know that later in Luke's Gospel, Jesus will make room for himself in another καταλυματι -- the upper room (22:11; same word).  The idea is that in ancient houses, the καταλυματι referred to the upper room or the guest quarters.  If one understands this as "upper room" then the image you get is that Mary and Joseph were with distance family, because it was so crowded, they put the baby and pregnant woman in with the animals.  Even if you want to imagine Jesus as a middle class person with distant relatives surrounding him...Luke's poetry still maintains its force:  The world didn't have room for him and the prince of all creation was sleeping in a bed of hay.  (And more crassly, a woman was giving birth among the animals!)  Luke wants us to know what at some level -- any level!! -- the world didn't have room for Jesus.

I also wonder what kind of poetic force it would allow to translate this as "There was no room for them in the upper room."  The very place where Jesus makes room for the whole world -- the new Passover -- is the place the world banished him at birth.

ευδοκιας ("pleasure", 2:14)  I often wondered about this word -- did God intend peace for all people or just those whom he liked?  First, the Greek has a textual problem.  The manuscripts seem divided (and even in manuscripts there are edits) whether this should be read as a nominative or genitive.

If we read it as a nominative:
N) glory to God; peace on earth; good will among humans (i.e. three items distributed in three realms)
If we read it as a genitive
G)  glory to God; peace on earth among humans of (his) pleasure.
If we go with option N) it seems that good will is toward all people, unambiguously.  Unfortunately, the evidence textually, even though divided, favors option G).
So, if we go with option G) we encounter a bit more ambiguity.  If this is the case (okay, bad pun there), Luke writes "upon the earth peace among people of pleasure/desire."  The Greek leaves out the phrase, "of him."  It simply states, "among people of desire."  I am not sure if we can, on the basis of grammar, solve this case (again, bad pun).  What is unambiguous is that God intends for peace on earth!  What is ambiguous grammatically and historically is how we humans live into this peace.

The NET Bible quotes the TCGNT saying “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure” (TCGNT 111). *  I find this really helpful -- God's Glory is secure but human peace can only arise out of a gift.

Other Great Stuff

μεγαλην (literally "great", 2:9 and 2:10).  Two things are great in this passage -- there is a great fear and then a great joy.  This sets up, in many ways, the background for the whole of Luke's Gospel:  Jesus will cause great fear, but also great joy.  It is a backdrop for any good Christmas sermon too -- there is great fear in our world, but because of Jesus, we have reason for great joy.

δόξα (glory, 2:9 and 2:14) This word should and is translated as "glory."  But given how much Luke is channeling the OT (see below for more), one might wonder if he is referring to the OT sense of glory, as opposed to the Hellenistic sense of glory.  Hellenistic glory is how we think of glory -- majesty and all sorts of good stuff worth of honor and praise.  Like the winner of the Tri-wizarding Cup receives "eternal glory."  But in the OT, glory (כְּבוֹד) also referred to the presence of God, often manifested in a cloud.  This is true throughout the Torah when the Israelites are in the wilderness (See especially 40:34-35).  This continues later in Scripture too, for example, 1 Kings 8:11 and gets "blown up" in John 1.  In short, the glory of the Lord in the OT was not an abstract concept (like honor) but a concrete manifestation and security of God's presence.

What is at stake here for the preacher?  Perhaps the angels were surrounded by a pillar of fire!  But more deeply, the Glory of the Lord's typically showed up in the sanctuary.  If God's Glory is showing up here, it suggests that the shepherd's foothills have become a temple.  It also suggests that Jesus is worthy of worship, something that alone belongs to God (ie, Jesus is God!).  In short, there is something profound going on here -- socially and theologically.

ημεραις  (days, 2:1; 2:6 and throughout Luke 1 and Luke 2) vs σημερον (today, 2:11)  Throughout the Gospel of Luke, but especially the early part, there are lots of things that are happening 'in those days'.  But Jesus birth happens today.  I wonder if there a sermon connection there, thinking about the pacing of life.  Women move slowly with a donkey; the shepherds are hurrying to see.  We have lots of days, but Christmas day is different.  For me, Christmas Eve is one of the few times a year when I feel like I am not just living days, rushing from one activity to the next, but simply in the moment, dwelling in the proclamation.

To put it another way:  Christmas in America does everything is can to focus our attention on the past or the future.  The angels tell us to focus on the here and now, where God is! 

αγραυλουντες (participle form of αγραυλεω, meaning "living outdoors", 2:8)  This is a word we don't have in English.  It clearly does not refer to high class people!  Luke 2 begins in a powerful roman 'war room' in which the decision is make to count troops and tax citizens, but ends up in a field, in which the riches of heaven and the ranks of the heavenly host is unveiled.  Luke is moving us down the ladder of importance (Emperor, Governor, king of the Jews, middle class inn owners and finally to shepherds).  Yet, this precisely where the world's power is not is where God chooses to reveal God's self.

ρημα (literally "herema" meaning "word", 2:15)  This word is like logos, and it can mean thing or matter or word.  Thus...the shepherds literally say, "Let us behold the word."  John's Gospel is famous for articulating this concept, that the word became flesh, (John 1:14), but Luke here subtly allows the shepherds to articulate this most divine mystery!

Thayer offers that ρημα means "properly, that which is or has been uttered by the living voice, thing spoken, word; i.e. a. any sound produced by the voice and having a definite meaning."  When the shepherds report to Mary what was spoken (ρημα) and when Mary ponders the words/matter (ρημα) in her heart, translating this word as simply "word" makes sense.  But when the shepherds say, "Let us behold the word", referring to the birth of the baby, this is clearly saying that a word has become flesh!

Ιωσηφ (literally "Joseph", 2:16) Just a reminder that Joseph isn't left out of the picture!

συμβαλλουσα (literally "symballoo", meaning "ponder", 2:19)  Mary "pondered these things in her heart."  The word for ponder is symbol -- to draw meaning, to pull together or literally to throw together.  This is fascinating that Mary is gathering together the images and thoughts of the angels in her mind.

For 2026:  I want to look at the word "praise" and its connection to singing.

Times Lines and Roman History

οικουμενη(ν) ("world", 2.1)  The word for "all the world" here really means civilized world, coming from the Greek work οικος.  It is a reminder that for those in the Roman empire, this meant the ENTIRE world.

δογμα (literally dogma, meaning "decree", 2.1)  No important theological consideration.  Just that Rome has always been interested in promulgating dogma ;-)

απογραφη ("registration" 2.2)  A few directions one can go with this word. 
First, power of Rome:  Liddell Scott refers to this as "a register of persons liable to taxation."  Rome wanted a census because they wanted to tax and conscript people.  The first two sentences of Luke 2 are dripping with imperial power.

Second, challenge of history:  Luke's chronological placement of Quirinius doesn't add up in terms of a chronology.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius. (Other scholars are more generous.) 

A note on Luke's 'historicity.'  Luke 1 (vs 4), Luke 2 and Luke 3 all start with details about the time period, a reminder that Luke is not trying to write a myth here, but trying to put Jesus' birth and life within the actual historical context.

Third, sin of a census:  In 2 Samuel 24:10, David confesses to sinning as he has engaged in a census.  Why is this a sin?  Because the idea was not to count your troops but to trust the Lord in battle.  In fact, it may be that the zealots (mentioned in the New Testament) arose out of anger of this census being taken. 

Can we put this altogether:  Even if you cannot accept as historical fact the coincidence of Jesus birth with the census, Jesus would have been a young child during a census, a brutal reminder of the power of Rome, a foreign and pagan power.  Quirinius' biography is a great story of the "Roman dream" where someone rose through military victory and shifting political allegiances.  In short, Luke's setting the stage is correct:  The Jews existed under an imperial power, hostile to their faith.  Jesus was born in an empire that cared not for him.  This imperial power was and remains the envy of all other empires in its military and administrative might.

To drive this point home, the angel proclaims, "who is Christ, the Lord."  In Greek, this is spelled Χριστος κυριος, which is the basic confession of faith (Christ is Lord) that ran contrary to the Roman confession of faith (Caesar Kurios).  The angel here offers a subversive confession of faith! 

To put it more softly, the power of the state is to count, tax and wage war.  The power of the mother, really the power of the church, is to embrace and shepherd.

Luke was writing OT style

It is considered poor English to write a sentence in which the verb and object share the same word root.  For example:  I climbed a climb or I rode a ride.  We are trained to make the object and verb different words:  "I climbed a mountain" or "I rode a bike." 
Because of Hebrew's limited vocabulary as well as the importance of simplifying stories for oral transmission, cognate accusatives are very common.  Not so much in Greek, however.  Which is strange then that Luke uses three of them in this passage:

• φυλάσσοντες φυλακὰς  (literally "guarded their guard," or "tended their flocks," 2.8)
• εφοβηθησαν φοβου (literally "feared a great fear," 2.9)
• ποιμένες ποίμνην (sort of here too -- shepherds and sheep-herd)

Not sure why Luke does this other than to speculate he was reading a lot of the Old Testament as he wrote the Christmas narrative!

* To be honest, I think I know what the TCGNT is, but it seems strange that it would contain such a comment, so I cannot give a full citation because I think they are referring to something different.

Matthew 1:18-25

This passage occurs in the RCL, Year 1, Advent IV, most recently December 18, 2022.

Summary:  This passage teems with Old Testament allusions.  These allusions make it clear that Christ is to be exalted.  Furthermore, they make it clear that Joseph is a special person.  I appreciate why the church has so adored Mary; I think Joseph is often overlooked.  As Rev. Daniel Clark said to me while he was serving at my parish as a Vicar: Joseph is the blue collar bible character; a quiet, humble and hard-working person that Scripture overlooks!

γενεσις (lit. 'genesis', meaning "beginning" or "birth", 1:18)  Matthew uses this word twice in his first chapter (also 1:1).  He could have picked simpler words for giving birth, as he does in vs. 25.  I believe he used this word intentionally to connect back the Old Testament opening creation passages.  The first book but also the first word of the Hebrew Bible is "beginnings" (in Greek -- Genesis). Furthermore, like in the Old Testament, Matthew seems to offer two creation accounts, first the grand and then second, the detailed version.

To have more fun with this connection:  I believe Matthew in vs 1:1 here riffs on Genesis 2:4, much like John's Gospel opens with a riff on Genesis 1:1.  Matthew employs the the phrase "βιβλος γενεσωες" found only in Genesis 2:4.  Both creation accounts from Genesis are picked up by the New Testament; John picks up Genesis chapter 1; Matthew picks up Genesis chapter 2! 

ενθυμθεντος (from ενθυμεομαι, meaning "decide", 1:20)  This word does not simply refer to analytic processing, but the working through of one's feelings and literally passions (θυμος).  I love the fact that Luke acknowledges this was a matter of the heart for our introverted, blue-collar, step-dad to be.  There were so many layers of communal relationships - his parents, her parents, her and him.  How could he navigate all of this?

υιος Δαυιδ (meaning "son of David", 1:20)  When this phrase is used elsewhere in the Old Testament (Jeremiah 13:13 ; 2 Chronicles 32:33), it does not refer to the Jews or all of the Hebrews.  It refers to the ancient kings of Israel.  Matthew here is calling Joseph a king.

οναρ (meaning "dream", 1:20)  I am embarrassed to admit that I never saw this connection until some pastors showed this to me last week -- both the Old Testament Joseph and the New Testament Joseph have dreams...and go to Egypt!  I wonder if I didn't discover this earlier because the Greek version of the Old Testament uses a different word for dream.   Regardless, a cool connection.

Iησους (lit. 'Jesus', 1:21)  This is the name to be given to the baby born to Mary.  It is the Old Testament name Joshua.  Names often change when they move across cultures (Robert=Roberto in Spanish), but what happens with Iησους is wild.  When the Hebrew version of the name comes into English, it comes in as "Joshua", but when the Greek version of the name comes into English, it comes in as "Jesus."  Joshua's name means "The LORD saves" and his job is to lead the people across the river Jordan into the promised land.  Jesus will save the people, get baptized in the river Jordan and lead the people into the promised land.  We miss that connection in English that would have been clear to Joseph and Mary:  They are to name their child "the Lord saves" for he will save the people from their sins.

Εμμανουηλ  (lit. 'Emmanuel', meaning "God is with us", 1:23)  Although he is declared here to be "God is with us" Jesus will not assume this title during his ministry of teaching and healing.  Why is this?  I would argue because he must first die and rise in order to be Emmanuel.  At the end of Matthew's Gospel, Jesus declares "I am with you."  However, the literal Greek here is "I with you am"; "I am" is the ancient name of God.  So here Jesus expands the title of God to include -- at its heart -- with you.  He then takes on the name Immanuel, but only after the cross and empty tomb.

μη φοβηθης (meaning "do not be afraid", 1:20)  Little side note on the Greek.  Although the English translators translate this the same way they translate the words of Gabriel to Mary (do not be afraid), it is slightly different in the Greek.  It is the same verb (φοβοω), but it is in the passive voice for Joseph and the active voice for Mary.  Technically then the translation for Mary should be "Do not fear" and for Joseph "Do not be afraid."  This is not very different, really.  But what is interesting is that when the passive construction is used in the LXX translation of the Old Testament, it often has an element of "Do not flee."  (further suggested by the words' meaning in Homeric Greek, I would argue).  Perhaps the angel is telling Joseph, "Don't go anywhere!"

Luke 1:39-56 (Magnificat)

This passage occurs in the RCL Advent Season.  Some years it is simply an optional psalm passage.
 
Summary:

Luke is such a gifted writer that the preacher need not do much more than slow down and help people hear what he writes. I have focused on joy.  In Luke's Gospel, joy is associated with the Jesus and communal worship. The Bible pushes this further and connects joy with suffering; if that seems an unfair stretch for this passage, Mary is certainly joyful amid great uncertainty, political oppression if not also family instability.

2023 Note:  In light of the constant memes I am reading about how anti-establishment (and pro-poverty) Mary's words are, I hope I have not missed the mark with this post.  One the one hand, Mary's prophetic words do pronounce a fundamental change in the world order, including the downfall of the rich and powerful.  One the other hand, looking at how the verbs are used in the Magnificat suggests that Mary's song is not likely a blueprint for human action.  Yet, on the mythical third hand I do not have, we also preach in a context of increasing gaps between the rich and poor, with our churches having more people of means than ever before but also people simply struggling to get a foothold economically.  Mary's words will hit home this year, just as ever.

Key Words about Joy

εσκριτησεν ("stir with joy", from σκριταω 1:41,44). In the New Testament, this word appears only in Luke. The Hebrew word that LXX translators translated as σκριταω has fascinating imagery, including the movement of cattle released from a stall. There is something uncontrollable about this type of movement. In Ancient Greek it would refer to the movement of wind gusts.   (Alas, I couldn't come up with something concrete to tie together Spirit and joy here based on this word!)  John has an uncontrollable joy in encountering Jesus.

2025 note:  A friend of mine, Bob Bekkerus, fascinated me in his sermon by drawing out how Jesus tells his disciples to "leap" when people persecute you, for this is what the did to the prophets (6:23).  He commented that this was the only other time Luke used this word; he then connected this to the joy Jesus commends to them at this time.  He then drove it home by pointing out this is exactly what John ended up doing and going through.

2014 note: When I think of this word now, I think of my own daughter skipping home from school in her excitement about the day.

αγαλλιασει ("extreme joy", 1:44; as a verb in 1:47) This word means a great joy that often results in body movement. It appears in other key places in the Bible both as a noun and verb.
Psalm 51: Restore to me the joy of your salvation.
Psalm 100:2 Worship the Lord with gladness, come into his presence with singing
Luke 1:47 My spirit rejoices in God my savior
Acts 2:46 The original worshiping community
Matthew 5:12 (Beatitudes) Rejoice when they mistreat you...they did the same to the prophets.
(1 Peter also associates this word with faith in the midst of suffering and trials.)

μακαρία ("blessed", 1:45 as adjective, 1:48 as verb)  This word is so fascinating.  Theological Lexicon of the NT (Spiqc) indicates that in Homeric Greek this word came to describe the gods and those who had died and were with the gods.  Why though -- because they lived a life not defined by the vicissitudes of existence!  The only humans who got to be blessed were those who had died.  This is quite fascination to draw a connection to the line of thinking in Christianity that only once we are dead to our sin - when we have forsaken all worldly claims to power and glory - that we are granted happiness.

One can have so much more to say on μακαρία when one preaches on Matthew 5:1 (coming up in the new year!), but it is worth reminding ourselves here that Mary, who has left home and the emotional chaos there to be with her distant relative Elizabeth, is saying that she is blessed.  A reminder that being blessed in Scripture is not correlated with normal societal markers of happiness, but the internal conviction that God is with us regardless of what happens.

χαρα ("joy"; not in this section!) Okay, okay, the word joy is not in this section. But joy shows up a lot in Luke
1:14: Joy at birth of John
2:10 Joy in the news of angels to the shepherds
10:17  This disciples returning from their 'mission trip' realizing that demons will submit to the name of Jesus.
15:10 and 7: Joy at a repentant sinner.
24:41 Joy of the disciples at the resurrection
24:52 The disciples end Luke's Gospel by worshiping in joy

(For 2026 -- look up some more on σπουδης)

Key Focus:  God's Action

Look at the verbs in the Magnificat associated with God's action:

• look (48)
• bless (48)
• done (49)
• [extend mercy] (50)
• done (51)
• *scatter (51)
• *tear down (52)
• uplift (52)
• fill (53)
• *send away (empty) (53)
• help (54)
• remember mercy (54)
• speak (55)

Observations

• First, God is the main agent in the Magnificat.  This is not a social agenda for humans.  One could argue that humans should do all this following God's example.  However, Mary does none of this, at least not the destructive stuff.  Furthermore, most people that go about tearing down are rarely ever viewed, in their life, or even later, as agents of God.
• Second, most of these verbs are positive, but a handful are "negative" or "destructive."  I marked those with an asterisk.  In short, God's primary work is giving life; the act of judging and punishing is secondary, or as Luther calls it, alien.
• Third, all of the verbs are in the aorist tense, suggesting that they refer to one time events (typically in the past).  This means that Mary somehow sees Jesus birth as accomplishing (or having already accomplished) all of this.  Ponder that!!

Grammar:  All about Resurrection (Luke 1:37-38)

In many cases, it is impossible to translate word for word, not only because of meaning but also syntax. English translators are (almost) forced to hide a resurrection that happens in Mary.
Mary has just heard the Word of the Lord and responded in faithful obedience (1:37-38). The translators make it look like there is a new paragraph: "In those days..." where the Greek connects Mary's faith to the next move. It reads literally, "Raised up, Mary, in those days went." In fact the word for rise/rose is actually αναστατις, which means even "resurrection."
So, a nice Lutheran translation would be:
"May it be according to your word." Raised up to new life, Mary went to Elizabeth...

To put it simply, Luke subtly reinforces the notion that the Word of the Lord produces resurrection.

Matthew 11:2-11

This passage occurs in the Advent season of the Revised Common Lectionary (Year A), most recently updated for 2025.
 
Summary:
For some comments on blessing, scandal and Luther, see below!  I would like to focus though on the words Jesus attributes today to John the Baptist, claiming that "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you."  This passage is often said to refer to Malachi 3:1.  However, a careful reading, in English or in Greek, reveals that it is quite different from Malachi 3:1.  In Malachi, the Lord sends a messenger to prepare a way for himself (the Lord) to return to the temple and bring about the day of the Lord.  In the case of John, Jesus says that he prepares a way for YOU.  I think Jesus may be referring to another passage in Scripture, namely Exodus 23:20 or 33:2.  Here the messenger is supposed to show the people the way into the promised land and out of the wilderness. This sounds a lot more like the job of John than the messenger Malachi describes!  Regardless, Jesus is claiming to be the Lord!

What to preach?

Such passages like this are why I've begun to use Luke 1 as my Advent preaching texts.  The Magnificat is a better preaching passage than this one, at least I think!  One could tie Matthew 11 into expectations and Christmas -- what are you expecting this year?  Do we have any real expectations for the impact that Jesus would make in our lives and in our world?

Key words

ἀγγελος (11:8; "messenger")  The word is literally "angel," but it also means messenger (double -gg in Greek is pronounced -ng).  In the Bible, especially in the OT, the line between the messenger and God is often blurred.  Often a story begins with an angel speaking and then suddenly God is speaking.  Why is this?  One answer may be historical.  As the NET commentary writes, "Cassuto says that the words of the first clause do not imply a being distinct from God, for in the ancient world the line of demarcation between the sender and the sent is liable easily to be blurred."  I provide a Lutheran, and therefore cooler, answer:  Where the Word is, so is God.  Theologian and 1517 author Chad Bird offers that the messenger of the Lord is, in fact, the 2nd person of the Trinity, already in human form.

σκανδαλίζω (11:6; "take offense")  This word appears often in the New Testament.  It is most often translated as offensive.  If you want to shake people up though, translate it more literally, "become scandlized."  I recall here Luther's 95 theses:
62. The true treasure of the church is the most holy gospel of the glory and grace of God.
63. But this treasure is naturally most odious, for it makes the first to be last (Mt. 20:16).

What might it mean to not be scandalized in Christ?  That we do not find his teachings offensive?  That we find our righteousness wholly in him?

μαλακοις (11:8; "fancy")  Hardly a key word for this passage, but alas, it is word of intense scrutiny these days.  Paul uses this word in 1 Cor 6:9 to refer to, well, we really don't know.  Ask the NRSV and they will tell you male prostitutes.  Ask the NET and they will tell you "passive homosexual partners."  It seems that at least, in this case, it refers to soft as in luxury soft.  I think.

προφητης (11:9, "prophet")  Sometimes in English we think of prophecy as predicting the future.  This was not the job of the prophet.  The prophet's job was something more like Jacob Marley in A Christmas Carol.  The task of the prophet is presenting reality in such vivid terms, including future possibilities, that repentance follows.  The future described by the prophet contains both beautiful visions of God's action but also the scary reality if the humans involved do not change their ways.  In short, a good prophet does not predict the future because the humans change their actions upon hearing his vision.  Jacob Marley's prophetic warning for Scrooge about a life in chains do not come true.  However, his biting words for Scrooge -- "Mankind is our business" do come true, but only because of the visions of hope and horror revealed to Scrooge.

Is Jesus quoting Malachi or Exodus (or Luther!)?

σου (11:10 "you" in the genitive)  

Interestingly to compare

• Jesus words in Matthew 11:10  "See, I am sending my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way before you."
• And Malachi 3:1 "See, I will send my messenger, who will prepare the way before me." 

However, Jesus changes the word "me" to "you"; the messenger is no longer for the Lord, but for you.  For those who come out of the Lutheran preaching tradition, this is crucial -- a sermon must be for you, in other words, it must hand over the work of God from Scripture, from the cross, from the empty tomb for you, so that you might believe and be renewed!

One could argue that Jesus is also referencing the work of God in sending messengers in Exodus as the people prepare to enter the promised land.

• "I will send a messenger before you" (Exodus 33:2)
• "See, I am sending an angel ahead of you to guard you along the way and to bring you to the place I have prepared. (Exodus 23:20)"

While I like the idea of John heralding entrance into the promised land, both Malachi and Exodus are hard metaphors.  In Malachi, the messenger heralds the day of the Lord, complete with a refiner's fire.  In Exodus, the messenger heralds a season of battle against opposing tribes to gain access to the promised land.  Both arguably could fit within the New Testament context! 

Sentence Translation

NRSV Matthew 11:11.  I picked this sentence because it has no participles.  Instead, it has a lot of nouns in different cases!
αμην λεγω υμιν -ουκ εγηγερται γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου, ο δὲ μικροτερος ἐν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν

As usual, divide into little pieces, using the Greek punctuation provided by most Greek bibles to help
αμην λεγω υμιν
ουκ εγηγερται εν γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου
ο δὲ μικροτερος ἐν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν

1)  αμην λεγω υμιν:  This should be straight forward:  Amen, I am saying to you.  Or Truly I say to you all.  Just fill in the words!  The only mildly hard thing is the pronoun, "2nd person plural dative."  Or "To you all"

Proposed translation:  "Truly I am telling all of you:"

2)  ουκ εγηγερται εν γεννητοις γυναικων μειζων Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου

Find the verb...εγηγερται   "perfect passive singular"  He/she/it has been born.  In Greek, the perfect makes sense here, because the perfect indicates a previous action that still has a linger impact, in this case, birth.  To translate the verb, you need to also translate the "not" or  ουκ.  So, before we get to the rest of the sentence, we know what has happened.  "He/she/it has not been born."  It turns out there is no obvious subject so far, so we will just leave it as "he/she/it."

Now divide up the rest of the sentence into "cars on the train."  Group them by case (hint:  cluster them by what looks the same in terms of endings):
A)  εν γεννητοις B)  γυναικων μειζων C)  Ιωαννου του Βαπτιστου

C) is the easiest:  John the Baptist.  But why is John in the genitive?
A) Bible works helps us here:  Among humankind.  To translate the word humankind, you don't have to worry it being in the dative because the preposition εν governs its translation:  in, with, among, etc.
B) "women" in also the genitive; μειζων means greater (at least here).

So what we know so far is:  "among mankind [genitive link] women greater [genitive link] John the Baptist."

To translate the genitive, just try "of"

"among mankind of women greater [of] John the Baptist."  This works in the first case, but not the second.  It turns out that μειζων grammatically requires a genitive.  This isn't how this works in English, so we will use "than" to establish the comparison.
... and at the same time, clean up the first part of the sentence:

"among people born to a woman greater than John the Baptist."

We combine this with earlier

"Truly I am telling all of you:"+"He/she/it has not been born."+ "among people born to a woman greater than John the Baptist."

Truly, I am telling you:  "No one has been born unto a woman who is greater than John the Baptist."

ο δὲ μικροτερος ἐν τη βασιλεια των ουρανων μειζων αυτου εστιν

Find the verb -- its at the end:  εστιν.  This means "is"  So now lets find the subject, which is something after the ο δὲ.  Hint -- when you have ο δὲ, the δὲ tells you that you are switching subjects.  But where to go from here?  Again, make you train cars:
A)  ο δὲ
B)  μικροτερος
C)  ἐν τη βασιλεια
D)  των ουρανων
E) μειζων αυτου
F)  εστιν

F and A you know.  Now E I put two words that seem different, but we've already learned that μειζων means greater and requires a genitive. So this means:  "greater than him."

C+D simply means:  "in the kingdom of heaven."  (Now what that means would take me the whole New Testament to explain."

B)  Means least.  And it is in the nominative.  So we combine with A) for our subject.  You get:  "the one who is least."  Or simply, "the least."

So we get:  "Even the least in the kingdom of heaven is greater then he."

Matthew 3:1-12

This passage occurs in the Advent season of the Revised Common Lectionary (Year A), most recently Dec 7, 2025.
 
Summary: The great fun of this passage is that everything is happening all at once and then over and over again.  First, John commands the people to repent, but tells them to do this repeatedly.  Then, people are continually getting baptized while at the same time continually confessing.  The order of baptism-confession-repentance is not entirely clear.  Well, actually, it is clear:  They all happen at once.  Over and over again.  Does this mean baptism happens again and again?  I think the baptism of fire does happen again and again, even if the ritual only happens once in our lives.  

Key Words:
μετανοιετε ("repent"; 3:2).  This verb is in the present tense.  This is significant because it implies that the action ought to be on-going.  In other words, the action of repentance is not a one time event, but a life-time one.  Interestingly, this is the verb that begins the 95 thesis.  When Luther read a similar passage in Greek (Jesus himself calling the disciples to repent), he saw that the Latin translation, the common text in the Middle ages, had removed this continuous aspect of the Greek.  Jerome had translated "repent" as "do penance."  Luther felt something was lost in translation here and so he started the 95 theses, leaning into the continual aspect of the verb:  "When our Lord and Master, Jesus Christ, said "Repent" he willed that the whole life is one of repentance."  

This brings us to a preaching quandary though if one is preaching on this passage during Advent.  Advent used to focus on repentance.  The candle and vestments were purple with one pink; now they are blue.  The current focus is hope and "blue" is the color.  Yet we've kept the same lessons, which seem to focus a great deal on repentance.   Perhaps though this present a preaching opportunity:  Repentance and hope are always related.  You cannot repent if you do not believe a situation can get better.  

[Actually, as an additional historical note:  The desire to make Advent less stark precedes the 20th century.  In the middle ages, the Western church wanted to have Advent echo Lent in terms of fasting and discipline.  But the combination of people needing cheer and the particular saints days (Nicholas, Barbara and Lucia) simply didn't allow for a mood of fasting!]

βαπτισμα ("baptism"; 3:7).  Originally, this word did not have religious meaning.  It simply meant to dip.  For your enjoyment, here are the Liddell-Scott Hellenistic meanings of the word.  Wow!

I. trans. to dip in water
2. to dip in poison
3. to dip in dye, to dye
4. to draw water
II. intransitive the ship dipped, sank

Try preaching that:  Baptism as a dip in poison; as a dip in dye; as a drawing of water from God; as finally, a sinking ship!  Didn't some monk once write about Baptism as daily dying and rising?

ἐξομολογούμενοι ("confessing"; 3:7)  Latin and Greek have different roots for the word confess.  In Latin, the word has a sense of what one says when one is in "fetters", when one is captive.  In Greek, the word means "say as one", or attest to what someone else has says.  As in, we confess the Apostles Creed.  Here the people are together, saying as one, their sins.  Two preaching possibilities:

First, the verb is in the present tense as a participle, which means it is happening concurrently with the main verb, in this case, baptize.  The image Matthew presents is not that people confess and then go into the waters, but that this outpouring of the Spirit is somehow producing cleaning and confession, all at once.  How might one connect baptism, confession and repentance in an on-going manner?

Second, I find Advent (December) a strange month in that people do collectively confess their sins:  We are too consumeristic, we are too focused on the self, we eat too much, we don't share enough, etc.  Yet we go on doing it all anyway.  What is the role of the church in this season of confession and yet non-repentance?

πνευμα ("spirit"; 3:11).  The word can mean "breath" as well.  What is worth noting, especially as we begin the year of readings from Matthew's Gospel, that the Holy Spirit plays an integral role in Matthew's Gospel.  It is not fair to simply say Luke is about the Spirit...In Matthew the Spirit is there too, connected with the birth of Jesus (1:18) and the command to make disciples (20:18). 

This word also shows up in this week's Isaiah text (11:2).  The "Spirit of the Lord" is upon me.  (It is interesting to observe how the NRSV changed this from the Spirit of the lord to the Spirit of the LORD in the updated version!)

Grammar point: 
Greek and Hebrew punctuation.  Well, they're ain't much!  In fact, in the earliest biblical manuscripts there were only capital letters without spaces, even between words.  So Mark and Matthew "play" a bit with Isaiah
"A voice cries in the wilderness:  "Prepare the way of the Lord."  The Hebrew, as at least pointed by the Masoretes, more accurately reads:
"A voice cries, "In the wilderness, prepare the way of the Lord."  I.e., get ready to go back from exile on the road through the wilderness.  Mark and Matthew take the verse and give it new meaning!  A reminder of the freedom that the Spirit gives us to interpret the Word for our context.  Or maybe a warning too!

Verse Translation:
Matthew 3:6 και εβαπτιζοντο εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου εξομολογομενοι τας ἀμαρτιας αυτων

Sometimes, before you divide and conquer, just try reading the sentence by sticking in vocab you know and see where you get. When it comes to this verse, if you know a bit of Greek, you should be able to get: 

And baptize in the Jordan under/by/of him ?? the sins of them

Let's save that nasty participle and look at the first half of the sentence (ie, now divide)

και εβαπτιζοντο εν τω Ιορδανη ποταμω υπ αυτου

The key to translation here is to recognize that baptize is a passive voice verb.  This allows you to make sense of "υπ αυτου" which is how Greek tells you who did the action in passive voice:

"And baptized in the river Jordan by him." 

Now we nail down our verb a bit more:  imperfect, 3rd person:

"And they were continuously being baptized in the river Jordan by him."

So, now onto:  εξομολογομενοι τας ἀμαρτιας αυτων

 τας ἀμαρτιας αυτων should be clear:  Their sins or the sins of them.

However, the participle is a mess here.  It turns out it means "confess"  It is a middle present participle.  Hmm...middle means you can translate it as active.
So:  "confessing their sins."

What is the connection of this clause to the rest of the clause?  Well, the participle is a circumstantial participle...but what circumstances?  Well, the key here is the tense.  It is present tense.  That means the action is on-going.  However, the main verb is in the imperfect.  So does this mean the baptizing happened before the confessing?  No!  The present tense of the participle means that this action happens at the SAME time as the main verb.  In other words, the people did not baptize and then confess; or vice verse.  What is means is that while they were being baptized, they simultaneously were confessing.  So we get:

"And they were continuously being baptized in the river Jordan by him, while they were confessing their sins."

In the wilderness of life, our baptism and confession...and repentance are all related.

Matthew 24:36-44

This passage occurs for Advent 1, year A.  I don't normally preach on this passage because 

• I usually use Luke 1 for Advent Gospels
• I love the Isaiah passage paired with this Gospel

Summary:  How one approaches this passage probably depends on how one has preached during November.  Do you have one more sermon about the "end" times?  This passage is very sharp and present a real dichotomy between those saved and not saved.  If you go this route, a Lutheran sense of sinner and saint might be helpful.  Also, some reflections on γρηγορεῖτε, which means "be woke!"  This might offer a "fun" way to play with super "buzz" word in our culture today.

παρουσια ("coming"; Matthew 24:37, 39): This word can mean simply "presence."  It can also meant "coming" -- literally translated as "Advent" by Jerome when he translated the Greek into Latin.

BDAG has some helpful insight (as usual)

• "On one hand the word served as a sacred expression for the coming of a hidden divinity, who makes his presence felt by a revelation of his power, or whose presence is celebrated in the cult."
• "On the other hand, it became the official term for a visit of a person of high rank, especially of kings and emperors visiting a province."

Is Christ speaking about his spiritual presence among us?  It sounds more like the final victory procession.  If one wants to know what this looks like, one can turn to apocalyptic parts of the New Testament.  Or just read the triumphal entry of Jesus into Jerusalem (Palm Sunday).  This Sunday might be interesting to build off of Christ the King.  What kind of triumphal procession does Jesus normally take?  Fascinatingly, in the Middle Ages, the preaching text for Advent 1 was the Palm Sunday passage!

κατακλυσμος (literally, cataclysm; 24:38, 39)  Jesus references a time of great destruction in which the righteous are saved through the ark.  This is hard; but is it meant to point out the destruction or ultimate salvation?  To what extent is destruction a part of creation?  How can we get to the new creation without the old creation dying?

Lastly, παραλαμβανω and αφιημι (24:40, 41)  These words are an interesting pairing.  They could mean "taken and left behind."  But they can just as easily mean "received and forgiven." 

Possible solutions:  

• Accept the fact that half of the people on earth will be left behind when Jesus comes, awaiting their opportunity to repent (or as the next parable suggests, await punishment).
• Move to a sinner/saint understanding -- in each person resides two people. The saint is received; the sinner is forgiven, but this means, truly, left behind.
• That some are taken and others forgiven.  Both good outcomes and the result of Jesus coming among us.

γρηγορεῖτε ("awake", 24:42)  This verb is in the present tense, meaning that it is an on-going action.  It should be translated "Stay awake" or in modern parlance "be woke."  This might serve as an interesting sermon then to reflect on what we are supposed to be woke about.  Turns out it is not identity politics, but the coming of Christ.  What might it mean to focus our attention and thoughts on his ultimate arrival?  This could lean into Advent and Advent piety around prayer, singing and giving.  

But what about the marginalized?  Are they forgotten or at least removed from focus?  It we read ahead a bit into Matthew, we eventually come upon the story of the sheep and goats, and the command to "do to the least of these..."  I wonder if this is what it means to be awake for Jesus, some how to be awake for those in need here on earth, but also to be awake for the coming of Christ.  This seems quite a challenge for us during life:  Some how to be awake to an ultimate reality that must dawn while being awake to the needs of the present reality.  This might be a fairly abstract sermon most times of the year, but I think the Advent context allows us to ground this in real life.  This Christmas season, what is the focus of our people?  Most people are focusing on all sorts of things besides Jesus.  They will want the law, the call to focus on Christ; they expect this from their pastors.  And I think most will intuitively agree -- every Christmas movie points this way -- you can't focus on the ultimate without including generosity towards others in need.

Luke 23:33-43

This passage occurs on Christ the King Sunday in the Revised Common Lectionary (Year C).
 
Summary
There is an ambiguity in the Greek this week.  Do those mocking Jesus disbelieve he is king or, knowing this, misunderstand what this means?  The world has often suffered, not simply because we deny Jesus' his title, but because we misunderstand what it means for him to be king.  This passage offers great contrasts between Jesus' rule (or even economy) and that of Rome (and the world):  Jesus willingness to die, forgive and share.

2024 insight:  While doing a series on the 7 last words, I played around with the word paradise, realizing that this is the Greek word the Septuagint uses for the Garden of Eden. This definitely opened up some preaching possibilities in terms of Jesus restoring all things.

Key Words
σταυρόω (23:33; 'crucify')  As scholar Martin Hengel writes, “Death on the cross was the penalty for slaves, as everyone knew; as such it symbolized extreme humiliation, shame and torture.”  People wear crosses around the necks and jewelry today.  Not so in Jesus' day.  A painful reminder of this is the word κρεμασθέντων (23:39, 'hang'), which reminds us that the real goal of crucifixion was suffocation.

διαμερίζω  (23:34; see also 22:17, "divide")  The soldiers divide Jesus garments by lot.  Interesting, a scene early in the passion Jesus has the disciples divides the bread.  Quite a contrast between the kingdom of Rome and the Kingdom of Jesus!

χριστος (23:35,39, "Christ" or "Anointed.")  This word is from the Hebrew: "Messiah," which means anointed.  Worth pointing out is that Jesus has been called the Christ before.  First, by angels (2:11), then by Peter (4:41) and perhaps one could argue, by the penitent thief.

σωσάτω εαυτόν (23:25, 37 and 39, "Save yourself")  This is clear in the English, but worth pointing out.  Three times Jesus is commanded to save himself (or "save yourself).  Jesus was tempted three times in the wilderness.  At the end he is tempted three times as well.  This reveals the real purpose of the original temptations -- to avoid Jesus dying on the cross.  The kings of this world save themselves.  Jesus saves others.  (It also brings up an interesting question:  Could Jesus have saved himself at that point?  I believe the questions suggest he could of, but until the end, suffered willingly).

βασιλεύς (23:38; "King")  You could almost use this as a religious litmus test:  Is a person willing to call Jesus King and speak of his Kingdom?  Or not?  Many progressives struggle to use the term "king" and "kingdom" in connotation with Jesus because it is patriarchal, hierarchical and associated with an age of colonialism.  Yet, we should remember this was a powerful and yet tainted word in the New Testament era.  As BDAG puts it, βασιλεύς is "one who rules as possessor of the highest office in a political realm."  This doesn't mean mayor.  King.  In Athens, he had charge of the public worship and the conduct of criminal processes.  Yet this power is not always used for good.  While "kingdom of God" or "Christ the king" does not reference medieval European kings, the New Testament writers would have known this word meant "authoritative power that is often abused"; in fact, the two examples of king in the New Testament are the Herods.  The OT isn't any better, as the OT calls two βασιλεύς:  Pharaoh and Nebuchadnezzar.  

The New Testament writers and arguably Jesus too, go to great lengths to show how differently Jesus' kingdom will function than the kingdoms of this world.  This seems to me to the be spirit of "Christ the King" Sunday, not a celebration of Jesus as some terrible autocrat, but a repudiation of how the kings of this world function.  Many kings promise paradise for their people, but end of creating a paradise for themselves at the expense of others; Jesus makes a hell for himself that we might have paradise!

παραδείσῳ (23:43, paradise).  In Genesis 2 (and then in Revelation 2), the word for the Garden of Eden in Greek is paradise!  This might provide some fertile ground (get it, ground, ADAMAH!) for sermons, reflecting on the full mission of God to restore paradise.

Grammar Review:  εἰ
Once again we come to the lovely word "εἰ."  This can mean "if" or "since."  The correct translation   depends on context but especially on the mood of the verb.  If the verb is in the subjunctive, "εἰ" should most likely be translated "if."  If the verb is in the indicative mode, then "εἰ" should be translated as "since."  In this particular passage, the verbs are indicative, so perhaps we should go with "Since you are the son of God."  Perhaps it makes little difference, but the translation begs a question:  Are the passers-by, the soldiers and even the thief wrong about him being the son of God; or are they wrong about what it means to be the son of God.  If you translate εἰ as "if" then you are arguing they don't know that he is the son of God.  If you translate εἰ as "since" then you are arguing that they know he is the son of God, they just don't have a clue what this means for the world.  I think the later translation probably makes us more uncomfortable and hence why we go with the grammatically incorrect (or at least less correct) "If you are the son of God..."

Sentence Translation. 23:33
καὶ ὀτι ἠλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον Κρανίον, ἐκει ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους, ὀν μὲν εκ δεξιων, ὀν δὲ εξ ἀριστερων

(NRSV) When they came to the place that is called The Skull, they crucified Jesus there with the criminals, one on his right and one on his left.

I picked this sentence because its not that hard in the Greek, but you need to know a trick or two to get through it.

First task, as always is to divide the sentence in to smaller pieces.  Use the commas:
1) καὶ ὀτε ἠλθον ἐπὶ τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον  Κρανίον
2)  ἐκει ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους
3)  ὀν μὲν εκ δεξιων
4)  ὀν δὲ εξ ἀριστερων

Looking at section 1: First, look for a verb.  Ah!  Notice the nice verb: ἠλθον.  This normal, nice looking aorist verb tells you two things -- one, you have a relatively straight-forward part of the sentence here and two, the subject of your sentence is I or they.  Remember, Greek can bury the subject in the verb.

Fill in what you know:  "And when they upon the place the "something-ugly" Kranion."

The "something ugly" is an adjective participle.  Easy to translate; easy to recognize.  Notice the pattern:  the +noun+ the + participle:  τὸν τόπον τὸν καλούμενον

The formula is "the noun who/which does the verb of the participle."
Or in this case, "The place which calls Kranion."
You also need to recognize (perhaps again through software) that it is a passive participle.  You should be able to figure this out on your own...know how?  Hint:  μεν
So you fix for the passive voice:
"The place which is called Kranion."  Kranion, or Cranion, means skull.  So we fix this up:
The place which is called "Skull"

"And then they came to the place which is called "Skull"

2)  ἐκει ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτὸν καὶ τοὺς κακούργους

Again, find the verb.  Notice again, its a nice verb:  ἐσταύρωσαν   Long, but not too bad...classic aorist.  Adds an "ε" in the beginning and "σ" toward the end.  Also tells you the subject:  "They"

So another basic sentence with a little twist:  "Here they crucified him and the-something or other"

Here we have the "substantive" participle.  Easiest in the book to translate.  Formula is:  "the+participle" and translates, "The one/ones who/which verb"  In this case:  "The ones who do bad things."

So we put it all back together:  "Here they crucified him and the others who did bad things."

3) ὀν μὲν εκ δεξιων

4) ὀν δὲ εξ ἀριστερων

A little hint:  μὲν and  δὲ is a parallel structure hint:  "on the one hand...and on the other." 

To translate ὀν you should put in "who."  "who on the one hand of his left, who on the other hand of his left."
In fact, since ὀν is accusative, this should be"  "whom on one hand..."  But this is all too confusing and we let the words we've heard most of our life suffice:  "one on his left and the other on his right."

Two questions for you:  why is ὀν in the accusative?   (Because the sentence is describing the two bad guys.  The bad guys were in the accusative and so the writer is letting you know he is still talking about them by keeping things in the same case.)

And why is it εξ instead of εκ before ἀριστερων?  Because the Greeks like a harder sound before words that begin with vowels.

Luke 21:5-19

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary in Year C, most recently November 2025.
 
Summary:  The translators do a good job in this passage of not "covering up" the intensity of Jesus words.  As I played around in the Greek, I found a number of odd parallels between this passage and the resurrection account in Luke 24.  First, both this story and the resurrection story are haunting.  Here Jesus warns the people not to be terrified (πτοέω).  When his disciples encounter Jesus after the resurrection, they will be terrified.  Next, Jesus warns of the listeners they will be betrayed (παραδίδωμι); after the resurrection, the disciples will hear the angels announce that it was necessary for Jesus to be betrayed.  Finally, Jesus tells them about their future witness (μαρτύριον); after the resurrection, Jesus will send them out to be his witnesses to the world. 

These are loose parallels, I admit.  The basic point of the passage is that witnessing to Christ is connected with our suffering and finally, our own resurrection.  I would argue, both from the text and theologically, however, that witnessing to Christ finally is grounded in the suffering and resurrection of Jesus.

Theological curve ball, completely unrelated to the Greek:  This week Jesus promises to give words; in Mark's account, the Holy Spirit will give the words!

Key Words:

λιθοις καλοις ("beautiful stones", 21:5)  A sermon idea -- what do you consider the beautiful stones of your life?  The things that "adorn" life and upon which you build your confidence, your hope and your life?  The destruction of the temple rocked the foundation of Jewish world; what stones have your realized were only "beautiful stones", not "living stones."

μαρτύριον ('witness'; 21:13; see also 24:48)  Originally this word simply meant "testimony."  Because so many Christians gave their life as a martyr, however, the word eventually came to mean one who would die for a cause; ie, their willingness to die became their witness.  Jesus, after the resurrection will say, "You will be my witnesses." (Again in Acts 1:8)

πτοέω ('terrified'; 21.9; 24.37)  This word means terrified; the only other appearance of this word in the New Testament is used in Luke 24 to describe the reaction of the disciples to the risen Christ, who they believe is a ghost.

παραδίδωμι ('hand over'; 21.12; 16)  A very common word in the NT (roughly 100 times!)  Jesus ministry in the Gospel of Mark, for example, begins with the handing over (or betrayal) of John the Baptist.  Interesting to point out here is that this word will also appear in the resurrection accounts -- from the angels and then from Cleopas.

- Oddly enough, sometimes handing things over can be good -- Paul, for example, says he is simply handing over the words of institution (11:23) and the core kyrgma (15:3).

ἀπολογηθῆναι (from ἀπολογέομαι, meaning "defend", 21:14)  This word has a clear English cognate: apologize.  The biblical meaning is not really apology, but more defend.  In an increasingly secular age, there is increased emphasis on "apologetics", that is, speaking about the faith in a way that doesn't apologize, but defends.  What is interesting here is that this verb is in the aorist passive; as a passive verb, this means that the one speaking will not do the defending, but will "be defended."  Jesus is telling them not to worry about "being defended" suggesting -- promising?? -- that they will be taken care of.  Sometimes we think about apologetics as our preparations and proof texting, but here it is simply allowing Jesus to defend the truth and us simply to bear witness.  These are powerful words when   

συναγωγη (literally "synagogue", from "lead together", 21:12)  It is worth noting that people will be handed over to synagogues.  Even if you want to believe this is Luke adding words into Jesus' mouth, it is clear that Jesus did not anticipate that his death and resurrection would end the conflict within Judaism about him.  The 1st century included a great deal of inter-religious tension.

ὐπομονή ('endurance'; 21.19)  Although rare in the Gospels, the epistles in the NT are filled with calls for endurance!  6x in Romans; 7x in Revelation.  The word means to endure and is often connected with suffering.  See Romans 5:3:  "Suffering produces endurance (NRSV)"

κτάομαι ('acquire'; 21.19)  This word appears rather infrequently in the NT.  One example is from Acts, where an official mentions he acquired his citizenship for a large amount of money (22.28).  This word does not mean hold but means acquire.

υμων ('of you'/'your'; 21:19)  Interestingly Jesus says "By your all endurance you all will gain your all souls."  Is this is a distributive "you" plural, as in -- "All of you will use your endurance to gain your souls" -- or really a plural, like your collective endurance will lead to your collective earning of your collective souls.  Just throwing it out there...last minute Greek find.  Too late for this year's sermon!

Grammar Review:  Non-necessity of an implied subject (its easier than it sounds)
In Greek, because you conjugate the verb based on who is the subject, you don't always need to list the subject.  For instance:  "λεγω" tells you both the action (speaking) and the subject (I).  Normally, in fact, Greek doesn't explicitly say the subject, but the reader/listener figures it out from the conjugated verb. 
Sometimes though Greek will leave in the non-necessary subject for emphasis.  This is true in a particular expression:  "I am" or "εγω ειμι."  This particular expression is often used as a name of God -- the one who is!  A handful of times Jesus will use this in the Gospels, most pointedly in John.  In this particular passage, Jesus says that many will come and that "I am," using two words, the subject and verb.  Again, the subject is unnecessary.  So why the emphasis?  First, because anyone declaring they are the messiah would probably want to emphasize the fact that they were indeed the Messiah.  Secondly, someone could employ this construction to indicate, in short hand, that they are God.

Only once will Jesus use these words - "I am he" - for himself in the Gospel of Luke.  After the resurrection he stands in the midst of his disciples and say, "εγω ειμι."  (24.39)  A reminder that its not only in John that Jesus uses such expressions!

Sentence Translation: 21:9
οταν δε ακουσητε πολεμους και ακαταστατιας, μη πτοηθητε; δει γαρ ταυτα γενεσθαι προτον, αλλ ουκ ευθεως το τελος

First step, as always, is to break down the sentence into smaller parts.  Let the punctuation help you here.
1) οταν δε ακουσητε πολεμους και ακαταστατιας
2) , μη πτοηθητε;
3)  δει γαρ ταυτα γενεσθαι προτον
4) , αλλ ουκ ευθεως το τελος

Now you've got four fragments, each of which is really translatable
1) οταν δε ακουσητε πολεμους και ακαταστατιας

First step to translating a clause is to figure out its subject-verb.  Here this is ακουσητε , which is conjugated (thanks Bible Works) for a 2nd person plural.  But you knew that anyway, right ;-) 

The basic of the sentence is then:  You hear

- Do you know yet why the verb is in the subjunctive mood?

πολεμους και ακαταστατιας is the object:  wars and destruction.  Its in the accusative case telling you its the object of the action.  So in proto-english:
You hear wars and destruction
You gotta add in the "of" because in English the verb "hear" needs this
You hear of wars and destruction


Now lets go back (skip the de) and figure out this conjunction οταν.  Actually, pretty straight-forward again.  It means "when" or "whenever."  It also demands the subjunctive mood of the verb. 

Clause 1:  "Whenever you hear of wars and destruction."
2) , μη πτοηθητε;

Translation:  Do not be terrified.  Worth noting here.  Simple aorist subjunctive regarding a future event/action we are not to engage in ;-)  Normally in the Bible, the words "do not fear" are in the present (and not aorist) tense, suggesting that the person who hears them is currently fearing.  The aorist subjunctive doesn't assume the person currently engages in such actions!

Clause 2:  Do not be (or perhaps even become) terrified.

3) δει γαρ ταυτα γενεσθαι προτον

When you see a dei clause, look for a verb in the infinitive.  In this case - γενεσθαι.  So we know that the basic translation of this passage will be :  "It is necessary to happen/be/occur."  Once you know you are in an infinitive clause, then find your subject, which will be in the accusative case. 

Agh!  There are two things in the accustative:  ταυτα and προτον.  Well, it turns out that Greek likes to stick neuter accustative adjectives in there as adverbs -- προτον (first) in this case.  So you get "It is necessary for these (things) to happen first."  But even if you didn't know about first functioning as an adverb, "It is necessary for first to happen this" doesn't work.  Add back in the "gar" and you get:

Clause 3 "For it is necessary for these things to happen first."

4) , αλλ ουκ ευθεως το τελος

"But not immediately the end."  If we recall from last week, sometimes Greek drops the "to be" verb.  So we can get:  "But the end is not immediately."  Or perhaps better: "But the end will not happen immediately."  It is not so hard to conceptually figure out what the Greek means, but its kind of awkward English.

Clause 4:  "But the end will not happen immediately."

Luke 20:27-38

This passage occurs in the Revised Common Lectionary, year C, most recently Nov 9.

Summary:  Many people want revival, or even merely resuscitation, but how many of us really want resurrection?   How many of us are ready for the world to turn upside down and the fundamental laws of creation - marriage and death - to be overturned?  The resurrection age will not be defined by the laws necessary for this age.  What then will define the resurrection age?  Jesus, the living one.  How does that work without laws defining relationships?  Without death?  Without sin?  I can only imagine!

Key Words

Σαδδουκαίων (form of Σαδδουκαῖος, meaning "Sadducees" 20.27)  These were a group of Jewish people who did not believe in the resurrection.  Here is a link to an NT Wright article on various stands of Jewish thinking regarding the resurrection.  Sometimes people use the mnemonic: "The Sadducees were sad, you see, because they did not believe in the resurrection; the Pharisees were fair, you see, because they loved rules."  Generally, both Sadducees and Pharisees are regarded as bad guys in the New Testament, but rather than simply portray them as bad people, I would invite us to ponder them and humble ourselves.

• First, the Jewish factions of Jesus day were not simply theological, but political, social, economic and partisan.  There is a whole world of temple politics that we just get the slightest glimpse into when we read Acts.  The Sadducees had their own voting block among the temple priests and leaders of the day.  This voting block was often woven together with family, contracts, property and future prospects for marriage and wealth.  It is worth asking ourselves: to what extent is our theological position on issues a result of our politics, class, education and sense of identity rather than true fidelity to God's Word?
• Second, the Sadducees considered it a coherent reading of the Old Testament to believe that when we died, we died.  They could not imagine a new creation.  To what extent do we struggle to believe in the new creation?  To what extent to we limit our faith to ethics for this world alone?  

ἀναστάσει (form of ἀνάστασις 20.33)  This is arguably the most important word of the New Testament.  The mission of Jesus was not simply resuscitation, that is, to give life to the dying, so they could carry on a little bit more.  The mission of Jesus was not simply revival, to restore the downtrodden individual or the oppressed people to greatness once again.  The mission of Jesus was resurrection, the wholesale defeat of sin and death, which could finally allow God to be with us always!

I am struck by our lack of imagination around resurrection and our struggle to believe in it!  We too often succumb to the temptation to simply hope for slight improvements in our lives rather than the world made new in Jesus!

γαμοῦσιν (various forms here meaning "marry", 20.34 and 20.35)  In modern America, it has become increasing common for people not to be married.  In the ancient world, this was far less common.  People needed to family for social security.  Marriage formed the bedrock of society.  To put it another way, to say that in heaven there is no marriage means that the most important legal arrangement on earth no longer carries weight in heaven.  

υἱοὶ ("sons" or "children" where a masculine plural represents both genders; this appears many times in the passage).  It is also interesting that Jesus also plays on the parent child relationship, saying that in heaven we are children of the resurrection.  While this sounds good, it also means that our primary identity as children is no longer in relation to our biological parents, but our relationship to Jesus Christ.  

When Jesus says there is no more marriage, there is no more death and we are children of the resurrection, he is saying that the moral and legal framework of the universe:  body-death, parent-child, spouse-spouse have all been undone.  What remains?!

νεκρῶν ἀλλὰ ζώντων ("dead but living, 20.38)  The English "God is not the God of the dead, but the living" conveys the Greek effectively here. But I want to pause for a moment and point out that the word dead is simply an adjective, but the word live is a participle -- a verb!  The living are doing something!  This also foreshadows Luke 24 when the angel says, "Why are you looking for the living among the dead?"  It is the same combination of dead (as adjective) and living (verb as participle).  Although in that case, it is combined with the article:  Why are you looking for THE living one among the dead.  It might be a stretch to say that Jesus is saying he is God here, but Jesus is saying God is the God of the living and that that means if he is God, he must be living!!

Grammar bonus I

καταξιωθέντες (form of καταξιόω, meaning "find worthy, 20.35)  This is a nasty looking verb, one where even if you knew the Greek vocab word, you might not find it.  It is nasty because it is an aorist passive!  What does that mean?  It means that we are found worthy, we do not make ourselves worthy!  It also interesting in that it is an aorist verb, emphasizing the one time nature of this verb.  We only need to be find worthy once.  As a Lutheran, I would argue this is accomplished in the cross and promised in Baptism to us.

Regardless of confessional subscription, this aorist passive, which reminds us that being found worthy is a gift, perhaps reminds us of the greatest difference in this life and the next - in this life there are rules, rewards and injustice.  In the next life, in the resurrection, there is simply gift.

Grammar bonus II

αὐτῷ (him, 20.38)  In English, we tend to use word order and many prepositions to define the role of a word in a sentence.  In Greek, they use word order, some prepositions AND they leave words in "cases" to reveal their function in a sentence.  However, cases, even more so than prepositions, can have a wide range of meaning.  So in this case (haha), verse 38 we have the word "him" in the dative.  We could easily translate this

• "All live unto him" (King James/ NIV)
• "All to him are alive" (NRSVUE)
• "All live by means of him" (me)
• "All live before him" (NET translation)

Luke 6:20-31 (Luke 6:17-26)

This passage occurs in Revised Common Lectionary for All Saints Sunday in year C, most recently November 2025.  A similar passage, Luke 6:17-26, also occurs in the RCL, year C, Epiphany, most recently February 16, 2025.
 
Summary:

You don’t need Greek to catch the big picture here: Jesus is turning the world upside down and is, well, happy about it!  The Greek helps us wrestle with the thornier issues of 
WHO are blessed;
WHEN are they blessed;
& WHAT does this blessing look like?

The Greek doesn’t change the radical nature of the passage but rather invites us into the rugged yet rejoicing terrain of Jesus’ thought.

A Warm up:

οχλος ("crowd", 6:17 and 6:19; embedded in a verb in 6:18)  The word means crowd in a pejorative way.  This is the riff-raff.  There is a strange verb in 6:18 (ενοχλεω) that means to cause trouble, giving a sense of the connotations around the word οχλο. 

καταβας (participle form of καταβαινω, meaning go down, 6:17).  It is worth pointing out that before he begins to preach to the masses, he goes down and then stands among them -- on a level playing field.  We've forgotten how to do this in the church, to go to people and meet them where they are.

επαρας (from επαιρω, meaning "lift up", 6:20).  Jesus did not simply look up, but he lifted his eyes into them. Luke begins this passage with emotional intensity!

Key Words:

μακάριος (‘blessed’ or ‘happy’: 6:20; 21; 22): The theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Spicq) helps us understand the striking nature of Jesus' use of this word.  After a long summary of the Greek understanding of what it means to be blessed (pretty much what average Americans think), the Lexicon finally reviews Jesus' words: “It is impossible to insist too strongly on the meaning of this μακάριος …This is much more than contentment; it is an interior joy that becomes external, elation translated into shouts, songs, and acclamation. …Secondly, the new faith implies a reversal of all human values; happiness is no longer attached to wealth, to having enough, to a good reputation, power, possessions of the goods of this world, but to poverty alone.”

οι πτωχοι ("the poor", 6:20).  Blessed are the poor. The Bible does not say, “Blessed are you who are poor.” It simply says, “Blessed are the poor.” I prefer talking about people as individuals first and adjectives second (the people who are poor vs the poor).  But it brings up the question here -- is Jesus talking about the individuals who are poor or the whole group?

πλουσίος (‘rich’; 6:24): Luke uses this word more times than the rest of the Gospels combined. Generally, Luke has a fairly negative attitude toward the rich, however, it would be unfair to say that Luke, or therefore Jesus, simply criticizes them. Zacchaeus, for example, is rich; Jesus comes to his house!  It is also hard to imagine that the rich does not include most of the people that listen on a Sunday to us.

οὐρανος (‘heaven’: 6:23): It might be tempting to think of heaven as a “state of being” rather than a place. However, in Luke’s Gospel, heaven is not simply a relationship or a state of the world, but a place. Luke uses the word 35 times, almost exclusively to refer to the dwelling place of God, and in a very concrete way, namely, the space above us.  According to Luke, Jesus is not saying:  Well, you will be poor but you will have me. Jesus is saying, you are suffering now but have a reward (μισθός) in heaven. But we will return to this point!

μισθός (‘wages’ or ‘reward’: 6:23 also 6:35). This word literally means pay, as in a worker receives his pay for a day’s work (Luke 10:7; Matthew 20:8).

A Classic Theological Translation Problem  

η βασιλεια του θεου (6:20)

η βασιλεια του θεου: “Kingdom of God” is tricky. The genitive case has a lot of possibilities. In English this ambiguity is preserved because the word “of” is ambiguous too. A few examples of possible translations:

a) “Kingdom belonging to God” (The house of my family)

b) “Kingdom from God” (Sound of water drops)

c) “Kingdom done by God” (Singing of a choir)

d) “Kingdom for God” (Love of money)

e) “Kingdom consisting of God” (as in “bag of money)

So, which is the right one?  First, we can leave it ambiguous, as almost every translator does:  “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.”

But we could translate a bit more boldly:  “Blessed are the poor, for yours is the kingdom from God.”  The poor are blessed as they receive the most important gift...which is perhaps given to them by faith!

Missing word:  'To Be'
In Greek, as in Hebrew, a sentence can occasionally lack a verb. For example, Psalm 25:8 is translated as, “Good and upright is the LORD.”  The Hebrew simply reads "Good-upright LORD."  Admittedly, Hebrew always seems to be missing words the English reader longs for. However, here Hebrew is simply putting the adjectives (good and upright) in predicate form. This is how grammar people, whose addiction to Latin is scary, describe the placement of the word “brown” in: “The cow is brown” instead of “The brown cow.” The point is that the author is saying that the rest of the stuff in the sentence (like in Psalm 25: Good and upright) describes the subject (God). Because of the rules of Hebrew, you don’t have to use a verb when you do this. You let the reader do the work.

Greek does this less frequently (far less frequently) but on occasion it still happens. In verse 6:23 we have such a construction:ιδου γαρ ο μισθος υηων πολυς εν τω ουρανω
or literally “Behold for your wages great in heaven.” A predicate adjective, meaning, the phrase “great in heaven” describes the wages (even though we lack the verb "is" or "will" or any form of "to be").

So has our grammar helped us derive meaning? Well, maybe. The point is that the wages are great and are in heaven. We know then, the WHAT (great) and the WHERE (in heaven). The question then is WHEN do we get them! The sentence grammar suggests they are in existence now.  But do we have access to them?

For those that think this is too much of a stretch, consider that almost all of the promises are in the future: blessed are those who weep, they will be comforted.  However, the Kingdom of God belongs to the poor now.  Yet, again, do they (we) have access to it?  And in what way?