Matthew 5:1-12

This passage occurs in the Epiphany season of the Revised Common Lectionary (Year A), most recently January 2026.  It also occurs on All Saints Day, Year A, most recently November 2023.
 
Summary:
A very familiar passage.  What caught me this time was the focus on Jesus teaching them:  διδασκω.  Jesus is presented as a teacher in the Gospels.  Sometimes in our (Lutheran) emphasis on Jesus as savior we overlook Jesus as teacher.  This passage, if not Matthew's Gospel, can rub us the wrong way as theologians because it portrays Jesus as moralistic; in fact, it even seems to be moralistic and therapeutic.  So where is the theology of the cross?  Well, in the beatitudes, God once again is showing up in the wrong places for the wrong people.  This is the theology of the cross and something worth teaching.

στομα ('mouth'; 5:2)  The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel all use this expression to talk about the Word coming from the mouth of the Lord.  The Lord also tells Moses he will open his mouth to speak before Pharoah.  It does not seem an entirely common phrase, but one really picked up by these four prophets, all of whom faced false prophets.  I suggest with this strange wording, Matthew harkens back to this prophetic tradition, portraying Jesus as the Word of God who had spoken through the prophets.

εδιδασκεν ('began to teach'; imperfect form of διδασκω; 5:2)  Jesus teaches in all four Gospels.  The question is, what is he teaching them?  About heaven?  About how to live?  About how they are all sinners in need of grace?  Sometimes as Lutherans we want to avoid Jesus as teacher - making him into Moses - but the Gospels have no problem with Jesus teaching!

παρακληθησονται ('they will be comforted', future passive of παρακαλεω; 5:4)  This is a major word in the Bible; in fact, the word for Holy Spirit (the advocate in John 14:26) comes from this verb.  In Isaiah 40, God promises to comfort the people.  Have fun with the concordance on this one!  It is fair to say that, although Jesus is not simply a big teddy bear, part of the mission of God is comfort.

ονειδιζω ('reproach' or 'insult'; see also 5:11; 11:20; 27:44).  This word appears twice more in Matthew's Gospel...once when Jesus rebukes the unrepentant and finally when Jesus himself is on the cross.  This would mean that Jesus is blessed even on the cross.  Moreover, it shows that Jesus is not simply talking about his disciples' conduct, but talking about his own ministry.

μακάριος  (‘blessed’ or ‘happy’: 5:3 and throughout the passage): The theological Lexicon of the New Testament (Spicq) gets to the core of this word and its striking use in the beatitudes. After a long summary of the Greek understanding of what it means to be blessed (pretty much what average Americans think, namely, healthy, wealthy and wise), the Lexicon finally assesses Jesus' use: “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, acclamations. …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.”

In Plato's Republic, Socrates is engaging in a debate with a man named Thrasymachus about justice.  Thrasymachus argument is that justice is whatever the strong want to do.  He goes even so far as to praise tyrants saying they embody this kind of justice.  He claims: "But those who seize and enslave the citizens themselves, and not just their property, are not called by these terms of reproach. They are called blessed and happy (μακάριος), both by their fellow-citizens and by everyone else who hears about the wholesale injustice they have practiced. (Book 1, Section 344:b)  It is hard to say how much Jesus is turning the world upside down here.

η βασιλεια των ουρανων (5:3; the kingdom of heaven): Matthew's Gospel does not use the phrase kingdom of God.  Some scholars speculate this may be out of deference to the word God that comes from Matthew's Jewish piety.  Generally Matthew only uses θεος in quoting the OT; κυριος (often the NT translation of YHWH) is reserved for its more secular meaning, "master." 

εἰρηνοποιοί (5:9, peacemaker).  First, this is a reminder that peace must be forged.  It is an active process.  It also reminds me that Jesus has to uplift this because it isn't necessarily fun or easy!

Second, one of my professors, years ago, made a big deal about how this word for "make" was ποιέω and not τεχνάομαι.  In Greek, there are two words for make; the first comes into English as poetry (ποιέω) and the second as technology (τεχνάομαι).  His point was that making peace was not so much about technology but something softer.  (I am not kidding you, he some how tied this into how Michelangelo sculpted an uncircumscribed David).  I don't know if this fully holds water because ποιέω is used 99% of the time in the Bible for "to make" or "to do" and covers a wide range of meaning. 

Grammar review and verse translation:  To be or not to be?
NRS Matthew 5:3 "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνεθματι οτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων

First clause:  μακαριοι οι πτωχοι τω πνεθματι
In Greek, you do not (always) need to use the verb "to be."  You can simply add it.  So the sentence reads:  "Blessed the poor in spirit."  You supply the "are." 

 
The phrase τω πνεθματι is challenging for a translator, even though the words are straight forward.  The simplest translation is to interpret the dative as indicating location (where it is).  But then what does "Poor in the spirit" mean?  Psalm 34:18 has a similar phrase often translated "discouraged." 

The second clause:  οτι αυτων εστιν η βασιλεια των ουρανων
is more interesting.  In this case we have a "to be" verb - "εστιν"
What is most peculiar is the genitive case in which we find "αυτων" and "ουρανων."  The genitive can be translated a number of ways.  Consider how many relationships the word "of" can imply in English:  Kingdom of Fish.  Does this mean possessive (it belongs to the fish) or partitive (it consists of fish) or objective (kingdom for fish).  So in this case, "αυτων" might be a possessive genitive, like "the kingdom of heaven BELONGS to them."  However, nothing suggests why it couldn't be partitive, ie, "the kingdom of heaven CONSISTS of them." In fact, it might even be "objective," as in "the kingdom of heaven is for them."  I think "belongs" (possessive) is probably the most natural use of the genitive, but this exercise reminds us possibilities.  Likewise, "heaven" is in the genitive, which mean all of these translation possibilities exist for it as well.  (Also worth throwing in there is that οτι  can mean "because" or "that")

So, this sentence could read:
"Happy are the poor in spirit that the kingdom belonging to God consists of them."
or
"Blessed are the poor in spirit because the kingdom which belongs to God belongs to them."
or
"Blessed are the discouraged because the kingdom from God is for them."
And so forth!

Matthew 4:12-23

This passage occurs in the Epiphany season of the Revised Common Lectionary (Year A), most recently, January 25.
 
Summary: Reading how Matthew describes the call of the disciples after John's description seems unfair.  John created a work of art.  Matthew's seems like a clean-up job on Mark!  However, Matthew's touch-up work is good theology and good writing.  But what interests me is something Matthew doesn't clean up from Mark, namely Jesus' command to his disciples to "Follow me."  Actually, Jesus never says "Follow me."  He barks out three words, none of which are a verb:  "Here after me."  A bit rougher indeed than "Come and see" but effective nonetheless.  Get out of the way and let Jesus shake up the people!

Also worth noting:  The Greek reading of Matthew 4:17 is the foundation for Thesis 1 of the Luther's 95.

2023 note:  There is a strong note of community here as well as reconciliation.
2026 note:  The story begins with bad news (John's arrest) but ends with Jesus proclaiming good news in word and in deed.  He metabolizes hatred into love!  

Key Words:
μετανοειτε (4:17; "Repent"):  It is worth pointing out that this verse, Matthew 4:17, begins the 95 thesis.  Luther had grown up reading the Vulgate, which translated this as, "Do penance."  Luther's reading of Greek helped him see the deeper ethical (and existential demand) of Jesus:  Always and continually repent.  It is not an aorist (one-time) command, but a present tense command, which indicates the intent is for continued action.  Thus Luther says that when Jesus says this, "He wills that the whole life be one of repentance."

I am also struck this year (2023) that this is a plural command.  This command to repent was never simply for an individual.  Also interesting the disciples leave in pairs!

καταλιπων (here a participle form of καταλειπω, 4:13; "abandon"):  Jesus leaves his hometown.  This is something that Mark leaves out.  I like this detail though because before Jesus asks his disciple's to leave their home, he has already left his. 

κατωκησεν (from κατοικεω, "dwell", 4:13)  I don't think I had seen the word "οικεω" in this word.  Before Jesus calls people, he gets to know the territory.  

πληρωθη (πληροω, 4:14; "fulfilled"):  One of the cliches regarding the Gospels is that Matthew wrote for Jews; Luke for gentiles.  However, a quick search on this verb reveals that Luke takes nearly as much time as Matthew to connect Jesus' actions as "fulfilling" OT prophecies.  The only Gospel writer seemingly unconcerned with fulfillment of the OT is Mark.  Helpful to remember that in the year of Matthew (and Luke) we will find lots of direct OT connections.

βαλλοντας (from "βαλλω", 4:18)  To cast means to throw.  Which means the disciples are letting go!  The first criteria that Jesus looks for is people who can "Let it go!"

δευτε (with οπισω μου, 4:19; "Follow??"):  This word is not a verb.  It is more of an adverb like "quick" or an interjection, like "Here!" or "Come on!"  Jesus does not literally say, "Follow me" using the Greek word follow.  He simply says, "Hey, Come on!  After me!"  In other words, "Follow me" makes it sound like Jesus even gave them more instructions than he did.

ποιησω (4:19; "I will make"):  It is helpful to remember that the task of becoming disciples is not one that we accomplish, but rather Jesus says he will make them fishers (of men).  Jesus is the subject of transformation; we are the object.

καταρτιζοντας (from καταρτιζω, meaning "mend", 4:21)  The second criteria Jesus look for in disciples are people who can mend.  The world needs mending!  

Note:  This word is fascinating; I don't think its translated the same way twice.  It has a broad meaning of making something whole and complete again.

Gal. 6:1   If anyone is caught in any transgression, you who are spiritual should restore them in a spirit of gentleness.

1Th. 3:10 ...as we pray most earnestly night and day that we may see you face to face and supply what is lacking in your faith?
Luke 6:40 A disciple is not above his teacher, but everyone when he is fully trained will be like his teacher.

Ephesians 4:12 ...to equip (noun form) the saints for the work of ministry, for building up the body of Christ, 

Heb. 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.

Grammar review/ sentence translation:  (Let me know if anyone reads this section.)  I am trying a different format here.
4:14  ινα πληρωθη το ρηθεν δια Ησαιου του προφητου λεγοντος
NRS Matthew 4:14 so that what had been spoken through the prophet Isaiah might be fulfilled:

A couple of points:
1)  When you have a ινα, expect a verb in the subjunctive form.  Don't translate it with "would" as you might; just know that in Greek the ινα demands a subjunctive verb:  "in order to do X"  In this case, "in order to be fulfilled"
2)   Notice the -ου suffix train?  Three words in a row.  Nice to connect them:  "the prophet Isaiah." 
3)   There are two participles.  One is nice.  One is not.  The nice one is λεγοντος.  This circumstantial is surprisingly nice because your brain can probably recognize the root verb and figure out...the prophet Isaiah is saying something.  Although circumstantial participles are often difficult to translate, λεγοντος is so common you might even be able to recognize it and simply translate it "saying."  Lastly, even if you don't include it, you still get the sentence correct, "What was spoken through the prophet Isaiah:"
The hard participle is το ρηθεν.  It is hard to recognize the participle, in this case the aorist passive form of  λεγω.  It is also a substantive, so you translate it in the form, "The one who/what/which XYZ."  Because it is passive, it is "The one who/which/what XYZ (in passive form)"  In this case, "The one which is said."  Since it is aorist, it is the "the one which was said."  "The one" sounds silly so we just make it:  The thing.
Yuck
4)  The preposition is δια.  So, you could read it, "The word spoken by the prophet Isaiah."  However, this stretches the preposition's meaning.  The more natural reading is, "The thing spoken through the prophet Isaiah."  Who says Matthew doesn't have a concept of the word as an eternal substance coming down to earth??

Gen Z's Religious Revival Likely Escapes Notice

An admission: I was wrong and my teenage daughter was right.  Revival of Gen-Z is underway and we likely aren't seeing it.

What I got wrong

Having spent much time doing youth ministry the past two decades, I was convinced of a couple of things regarding youth and young adult faith:  

• Young Christians understand themselves as a minority
• They live out this status as a minority with a sense of conflict and persecution or embarrassment and quietness towardness the broader culture
• The Church is viewed negatively; certainly not a place young people would go when they yearned for purpose, community or beauty
• The eroding cultural centrality of Christianity necessitates a conscious effort by families to produce faithful Christians

Sociologists like Chris Smith of Notre Dame and his argument that society in the 1990s jettisoned religion (que the R.E.M.!) have reinforced my framing.  Also, I have followed the work of religious demographer Ryan Burge, who has shown the myriad ways that Christianity loses adherence year after year.

So when my daughters, especially my older daughter, reported that high schoolers did not view Christianity with suspicion (if not disgust), I did not believe them.  When they told me their peers - likely a majority - are proud to be Christians, I argued this was simply an anomaly of the school district where we live.  

I have come to accept that I was wrong and my daughters were correct.  The religious environment facing young people today is not simply the demographic trends of the 90's playing themselves out in a more extreme version.  

- First, things are changing, revival is underway

- Second, this revival likely escapes notice

Revival: I vote yes.

Most of us know the story of the decline of the mainline church, the Roman Catholic church and increasingly, the evangelical church. 

So I want to tell you another story, that is the rise of faith among Gen Z (and Gen Alpha).  I started paying attention to this around two years ago.  We began having visitors to our church who were people in their 20s, perhaps early 30s.  Every month, another young adult visits my congregation.  I likely had as many 20 somethings in worship this past Sunday as 40 somethings.  That is super unusual in my community, where the median age is upper 40s!

The whole vibe is changing.  Returning college kids come with their parents for Christmas Eve worship, but then attend in January or in the summer.  Young men come to my office and confess their porn addictions to me.  Young women come to me and ask me for a young women's professional cohort.  Families return to worship telling me their older high schoolers and college age kids wanted a church home.  

This extends beyond my congregation suddenly having a season of renewal.  The Instagram bios of high schoolers I help coach include crosses or even bible verses.  People in my church tell me that younger coworkers openly admit they follow Christ in ways that my generation simply didn't talk about.  Charlie Kirk not only built a movement, but shaped an election and likely the piety of so many.   Searches for "How do I become a Catholic" searched 350 percent in 2025!  The Roman Catholic "Hallow" app - whose logo is to the left - was the number #1 Apple download on Ash Wednesday, 2025.  Even more interestingly, it costs money to purchase this app!

Something big is happening.

So why isn't the data picking this up?

This is where the plot thickens.  First, though we need to award "participation medals" for reasons why we've not observed the revival of Gen Z people:

• We have experienced so many years of decline, we don't believe revival could or would happen.  Turns out in life, we don't see many things until we believe them.
• Most mainline churches, due to their small size, existing demographics and location are not likely to be the first places that young people reengage with church.  The whole leadership/brain trust of the mainline isn't going to observe this in their congregations.

But now for the real reasons I think we are not picking this up

Influencers and the algorithm drives this 

The other day my one daughter asked me if I had heard of a certain Christian influencer, Bryce Crawford.  I admitted I did not.  Turns out he has 2.8 million followers on Instagram.  He is 22.  Even more on TikTok.  I did another search of Christian influencers.  It surprised me how many of these influencers have millions of followers.  One video by Bryce (or any of the others) produces as many viewer minutes as a lifetime of most pastors' sermons.

This isn't just about social media influencers.  When young people come to church this often follows a long time of watching videos online.  But they are not the videos of my congregation, as they try to figure out if we might work for them to attend.  Instead, they consume tons of YouTube videos about all sorts of things, from pornography, to creation, to Jesus' divinity.  

It is worth nothing that YouTube isn't simply a supplement, but a replacement.  For an older generation, family member or religious leader were a primary authority.  For young people, they bypass these traditional sources altogether, letting the algorithm drive them toward what else has been watched, shared and liked.  It is fascinating too, to consider how traditional criteria like denomination, education and ordination matter almost nothing in this online ecosystem. 

This entire ecosystem of content and creators that drives faith develops alongside of, but not always as a part of existing religious structures.  Certain denominations, seminaries, famous preachers and churches have found a way into this infrastructure.  The Pope has a big Instagram following, for example, as does the daughter of televangelist TD Jakes.  But many of the big names found ways to develop and leverage parachurch organizations.  For example, the largest Lutheran provider of content is 1517.org, which is not related to any particular Lutheran institution.  Moreover, one could even argue that Mockingbird is a bigger content producer, and even though it has explicit Episcopal ties, articulates heavily from a Lutheran perspective.

Most importantly for my argument, my social media feeds rarely show me videos of these rising influencers or theological videos.  The algorithm isn't proposing me people of a different generation and different ethnic or racial background for me to follow.  This should not surprise me.  The algorithm delivers Christian content created by 22 year-olds not to middle aged men, but to teenagers.  Case in point -- the person most grieving the death of Charlie Kirk in my church was a 12 year old boy!  That there is an explosion of Christian content and that this is reshaping the "brand" of Christianity into something positive likely isn't coming across the average member in my congregation.  

Spiritual but not religious

At this point, some of you may say, okay, there are lots of people watching videos made by Christians online.  The data though shows that worship attendance numbers aren't really budging.  Worship numbers admittedly have stopped declining, but if we were in a revival, wouldn't we experience a surge in attendance?

Chris Smith (the above noted sociologist) is correct, that our society no longer anchors itself around worship.  One could argue, even if we saw a revival of Christianity among older people, we would not experience a surge in worship.  Beyond people's increased weekend alternatives for their time, people's attitudes toward worship have changed.  People have started to view worship as one of many spiritual activities, along with Bible study, acts of service, "holy" conversations with friends, making religious music and prayer time as different options that can fit into one's schedule.  I've quipped that I feel more like a spiritual rec center director than a pastor these days, called to provide a variety of spiritual experiences for people.

Moreover, the younger the person, the more likely they are to feel comfortable with online engagement.  For an increasing number of people, online worship does not represent a derivative product, but a genuine if not preferred spiritual experience.  This extends beyond worship into all of the other array of ways to engage online:  Watching reels, using Bible apps, texting in group threads, listening to Spotify and who knows, maybe even talking to AI about God questions.  (I love how this top Christian and Gospel Spotify playlist uses "saves."  This is the normal way lists are shared on Spotify, they are saved, but it seems fitting!) 

Perhaps most strangely though, is that for young people, there is likely a far more porous boundary about what is Christian and what is not. This is the generation where 65% claim that following the stars has reduced their anxiety and boosted their confidence.  Witchcraft Pinterest posts by this generation have skyrocketed.  Just pick what you would consider a spiritual practice on the margins, if not outside traditional Christian spirituality, and you will likely find an internet statistic saying that Gen Z or Gen Alpha shows an increase.  The rise of interest or even affirmation of Christianity has not meant a decrease in spiritual practices associated with Christianity.

What is happening?  One needs to remember that this generation's Christians, already a minority, worshipped twice a month.  The majority of humans under 30 in our country have only been to church a handful of times in their lives, if at all.  When was the last time you went to a church wedding??  Most of this generation did not grow up reading the Bible, did not have religious music in schools, did not have prayers before meals.  They are generally unchurched, not de-churched.

When my generation said they were spiritual but not religious, this meant they didn't want to reject God, but they wanted politely to say that everything else lacked authenticity and meaning.  Gen Z and Gen Alpha cannot help but be spiritual but not religious, because for so many in this generation, they have no framework for discipleship inherited from their parents.  They lack the negative association to Christianity plaguing their parents generation, but they do not have communal practices and habits passed down to them.  My generation burned the roots; this generation often lacks them all together.

As I mentioned early, the older people in our society have migrated towards a more eclectic mix of religious practices; very few have all of their spiritual needs met by one house of worship.  But they still have the inherited list of what is expected out of a Christian (worship, serve, pray, read Scripture, etc.)  Young people often are coming to Jesus out of their spiritual hunger, but they lack the awareness of the institutionally based discipleship framework.

To put it another way, a typical 20 something might

• identify as a Christian on Instagram
• follow numerous Christian influencers on various social media
• listen to Christian music on Spotify
• check out a campus Christian group on occasion
• have prayer beads the bought on vacation
• have a Bible their grandmother game them

But they also might

• not be baptized
• consult an astrology app
• not have a congregational home
• not worship in person more than a handful of times a year
• never have prayed the Lord's prayer
• have a poster of a Buddhist prayer in their room

The builder generation built the post WW-II restaurant, the boomer generation added one down the street with guitar music, my generation chose to eat at home generally, but this generation has come back for the buffet.  And they are bringing with them some extra snacks they packed in case they don't like the food here; scratch that, they likely ordered it via Door Dash.

Therefore, when you look at most "restaurant" metrics, you likely don't catch this revival in the craving people have for the "food" of Christianity. 

What does this mean?

On some level, this energizes me.  Young people have an openness to faith not seen in decades.  How might the Holy Spirit call us into action?  It also terrifies me a bit.  I have a haunting sense that the existing church will struggle to pivot or survive if these patterns of spirituality will develop into the norm.  What kind of church could foster discipleship within this context?

Ultimately, I want to start a conversation.  I want us to move beyond ignoring it; I want us to move beyond judging it.  I want us to take seriously this renewed interest that expresses itself so differently than I thought possible.  Feel free to email, call or text me and let's pick up the conversation! 

John 1:29-42

This passage occurs in the Epiphany season of the Revised Common Lectionary (Year A), most recently January 18, 2026.
 
Summary:  John's narrative is very basic to read...because he only uses about 30 words in 14 verses!  He invites us into the world of the Old Testament, he invites us to follow Jesus, and he also invites us into witnessing ourselves to the lamb of God.  Speaking of the lamb of God, what is John getting at here?  There is no lamb in the OT who takes away the sins on the day of atonement.  The main lamb in the Old Testament is the Passover lamb, which has nothing to do with sins!  John's creativity, hopefully, inspires our preaching and teaching.
  
ερχομαι & οραω (1:39; 1:46; 4:29; 11:34, 19:33; 20:8 "Come and see")  These two verbs come together s number of times in John's Gospel.  A quite impressive list actually: 
A) When Jesus begins his ministry
B)  When the woman at the well returns to her hometown to invite others (different cognate for "come");
C)  When they bring Jesus to Lazarus' tomb
D)  When they find Jesus on the cross
E)  When they come to the empty tomb. 

John's Gospel invites us to come and see again and again, ultimately even the resurrection (20:8).

αμνος  (1:29; 36, "lamb").  The imagery of "lamb of God who takes away the sins of the world" often makes us think of animal sacrifices in the Old Testament.  However, the main sacrifices on Yom Kippur (day of atonement) were not lambs, but a bull and two goats!  In fact, other sin offerings (Lev 4&5) are not lamb offerings but again bulls and goats.  I am sure that many other summaries would be better than this one, but the lamb was used in OT times for sacrifices in the following manner:
Daily offerings (Exodus 29):  To please the Lord and welcome his presence
Lepers (Leviticus 14):  To cleanse the lepers by its blood
Passover Meal (Exodus 12):  To protect the Israelites from the angel of death by its blood marking the door panes.

A lamb could be used a burnt offering, a type of sin offering, but we are getting further afield here.  The point of this discourse is to say that in the Jewish sacrifice model of the Old Testament, you do not find a theology where a lamb is constantly being used to take away the sins of the individuals.  Isaiah 53 develops the idea of the suffering servant as a lamb led to slaughter, but again the point here is that one cannot simply draw a nice line from OT sacrifice to Messiah predictions to Gospel of John.  Okay, you can, but it is not so simple.

More deeply, I do not think the Gospel of John is advocating an angry God who slaughters Jesus to be happy.  I think John is riffing on Old Testament themes here, but the connection between Lamb of God, Jesus and "taking away" the sins of the world, moves far beyond what the Old Testament was prepared to acknowledge.  Is this a problem?  Not for this Christian.  I just want to point out that John 1:29 is probably not a good time to bring out angry God needs a Jesus animal sermon.

If I could summarize:  Holy Week links together the Jewish Passover on Thursday with sacrificial atonement on Good Friday.  John the Baptist (and the writer John) is way ahead of the game here, confessing that sacrifice, Passover and atonement meet in Jesus Christ.

Additional note:  I did some research on the word "αιρω", meaning "take away."  I could not find anything particularly connected with sin or sacrifice.  That said, the word is used within the passion narrative a number of times.   

• The chant of the crowd to crucify Jesus -- "away with him, away with him, crucify him" (19:15)
• The stone is rolled away
• Mary thinks they have taken Jesus away

However, I couldn't see any obvious pattern for what John might mean by the one who "takes away" the sins of the world.

κόσμος (1:29, "world")  This is a very easy word in Greek to read and understand "cosmos!"  It means world and comes into English in a whole bunch of ways:  cosmopolitan, cosmetics, cosmonaut.  Worth noting

• In John's Gospel, the world neither knows (1:10) nor loves God (7:7), even though God loves the world (3:16).
• Jesus salvation has the world in mind, not just individual lives.
• The very next story is Jesus interacting with individuals in very particular ways, in the weeds of their lives.  The salvation of the world isn't just about humanity, but it is about humans.  The salvation of the world also begins with individuals invited to follow Jesus.

μαρτυρεω (1:32, "witness")  This verb appears 33 times in the Gospel of John!!  It means to testify.  It came to take on the connotation of "martyr" as people began to die for testifying to the truth.  Stephen is often considered the first martyr (Acts 7 and 8), but it is worth remembering that John the Baptist, who witnessed (μαρτυρεω) also died.

επαρυριον (1:29, 1:35, 1:43, "tomorrow")  This little word appears three times in this section.  It is kind of a nice progression.  The first day Jesus is pointed out to the people.  On the second day, the people begin following Jesus.  On the third day they begin to invite others.

Grammar note: 
The present tense often connotes continuous action.  This can create some great insights but also make the narrative illogical.  For example, in verse 1:43, Jesus goes to find (ευρισκω; present tense) Philipp.  In the narrative this makes no sense that he "continually is finding" Philipp.  On the other hand, it does make sense  in theological terms that Jesus always is finding Philipp!  Then Jesus is saying (λεγω in the present), or really "continually saying" to Philipp, follow me.  This could make sense in both the narrative and in theology.  In fact, even the verb for follow (ακολουθεω), is in the present, meaning Jesus intends for Philipp to keep following him.  This all works out great on a theological level, but it pushes the narrative to the limits.  This is especially true when these verbs are used in the present tense in verse 41, when Andrew finds his brother to tell him about Jesus.  Is Andrew also continually finding Jesus and continually telling Peter about Jesus?   It was ingrained into me the "continuous" nature of the present tense.  This can create some great theological insight, but we cannot completely rest on it because authors often stretch the tenses more than we might expect.

John 1:41
ευρισκει ουτος προτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμονα και λεγει αυτω  ευρηκαμεν τον Μεσσιαν ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον χριστος
John 1:41:    He first found his brother Simon and said to him, "We have found the Messiah" (which is translated Anointed).

We divide by punctuation and conquer: 
1)  ευρισκει ουτος προτον τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμονα και λεγει αυτω
We find the subject and verb:
ευρισκει:  he/she/it finds - main verb
ουτος:  he -- subject!
προτον:  adjective in accusative case as an adverb: "first" or really "firstly"
τον αδελφον τον ιδιον Σιμονα:  His own brother Simon
και λεγει αυτω:  Another sentence:  "He is saying to him."
   Tricky to recognize this as another subject and verb combo, but the familiarity of the verb should make it possible.
2)  ευρηκαμεν τον Μεσσιαν
We have found the Messiah.  We is implicit in the verb.
3)  ο εστιν μεθερμηνευομενον χριστος
who/what/which is translated Christos.  Notice the o has a an accent and rough breathing accent, which means it is a relative pronoun.
So this sentence can almost be read word for word, once you divide it up.  The complicated part, as a we discussed in the grammar review, is translating the present tenses of the verb.

Matthew 3:13-17

This passage occurs for the Baptism of Jesus in Revised Common Lectionary (Year A), most recently January 11, 2026.
 
Summary:
Unpacking this short passage of Jesus' Baptism is a delight.  What caught my eye this time was the word for dove, περιστερα.  This word can also mean pigeon.  Imagine...God's Holy Spirit finally taking shape...as a lowly pigeon!  I think that kind of captures the reality of Baptism...God working through pigeons like you and me!

Key Words:
βαπτιζω ("baptize"; 3:11,13,14,17):  Baptize is fairly straight-forward in Matthew's Gospel.  John does it to people; Jesus is baptized; Jesus tells people to baptize disciples in the name of the Father, Son and Holy Spirit.  As I have mentioned before, it simply meant to dip in Hellenistic times. 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

περιστερα ("dove" or "pigeon"; 3:16).  What a difference it would make if our imagery was of an ugly speckled pigeon...but a few other key points in Scripture this little bird appears:
1)  During Noah's flood, the bird that brings him the olive branch is the dove
2)  When God makes his first covenant with Abram, Abram must offer a dove
3)  In Leviticus, the poor could offer a dove/pigeon for a sacrifice
4)  In all four Gospels, the dove descends on Jesus as he is being baptized
5)  Jesus turns out the doves (and their merchants) in the temple.

It is kind of interesting if you make out the spirit to be an ugly black pigeon that only the poor use for a sacrifice.  That is the vehicle through which the spirit works!

ευδοκεω (pleased, 3:17): Matthew also employs this verb when quoting Isaiah in chapter:

• "Here is my servant whom I have chosen, the one I love, in whom I take great delight. I will put my Spirit on him, and he will proclaim justice to the nations.  He will not quarrel or cry out, nor will anyone hear his voice in the streets. He will not break a bruised reed or extinguish a smoldering wick, until he brings justice to victory. And in his name the Gentiles will hope."(12:19-21)

What is the hope of the Gentiles?  Baptism, of course, where they are connected to the promises of God!

δικαιoσυνη (righteousness, 3:15)  Discussing this word could fill a million blog posts.  The Greek word carries with it both a legal sense and a relational sense that is difficult for us to capture in one word.  It can be fairly translated into English as either "justification" and "righteousness" in Greek.  

For example, this word is employed like this in the Septuagint (the first two emphasize the relational aspect of righteousness; the latter two the judicial aspect):

• In your steadfast love you led the people whom you redeemed; you guided them by your strength to your holy abode. Exodus 15:13
• Hear my prayer, O LORD; give ear to my supplications in your faithfulness; answer me in your righteousness.  Psalm 143:1
• It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus. (Romans 3:26)
• ...judge your servants, condemning the guilty by bringing their conduct on their own head, and vindicating the righteous by rewarding them according to their righteousness.  1 Kings 8:32
• the LORD, for he is coming to judge the earth. He will judge the world with righteousness, and the peoples with equity.  Psalm 98:9

Within the context of Matthew 3, does Jesus get baptized to fulfill the law and its requirements or does Jesus get baptized to heal the broken relationships in the world? 

Of course the answer is "both" "and".  However, how one leans will determine the shape of one's ministry.  In the American context, the legal sense of righteousness -- "justification" has been combined with our individualism and even consumerism to produce a Jesus who enacts a legal transaction on the cross to pay the debt of my sins that now I must choose to accept for myself.  To play my own hand, my sense is that when Jesus talks about fulfilling all righteousness, he has a deeper sense of restoring all the broken relationships in this world.  The gift of the legal justification is for the enactment of the reconciliation between all creation.

πληρῶσαι (fulfill, 3:15)  I did some research this morning trying to figure out why this infinitive is in the aorist tense.  Long story, but it seems that the aorist infinitive construction here points toward the fulfillment occurring as a the result of the baptism.  Which is brings up two big questions for me

1)  Does the Baptism alone achieve the fulfillment of righteousness?  My sense is that Jesus understood his baptism as inextricably linked to his cross.  (Mark 10:38, Luke 12:50)  However, this sense isn't explicit in Matthew's Gospel.  

2)  Jesus adds in the phrase "for us" (ἡμῖν).  To what extent is John necessary for righteousness?  To what extent are we all necessary for the fulfillment of righteousness?  

Grammar Review:  "Articular Infinitive"

Greek has a million ways to express the intention of something.  A very intentional people if you will!  One of these such ways is through the "articular infinitive."  See verse 13:  του βαπτισθηναι.  Literally you might read this as:  "Jesus...to John of the baptizing."  However, because you have an article+ infinitive you can read this as "to John for the purpose of being baptized" or leave it as an infinite in English, "to John to be baptized."  In this particular example, the infinitive is in the passive (notice the θη suffix).  Question:  What else suggests its passive?  (Besides the overall context of the sentence?  Hint:  prepositions!)

Sentence Analysis:  3:16  βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι, και ειδεν το πνευμα ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

Divide and conquer!  Use the grammar markings (which I cannot easily copy) to help you here
1) βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος  
2)  και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι
3)  και ειδεν το πνευμα ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

1) βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους ευθυς ανεβη απο του υδατος

Here we have a fairly easy sentence -- trust me.  Let's divide it up
βαπτισθεις:  Participle, but even if you don't know that, you recognize something with Baptism!
δε:  worry about later
ο Ιησους:  Subject
ευθυς:  worry about later
ανεβη:  main verb
απο του υδατος:  prepositional phrase

Get your subject and main verb:  Jesus came up/rose
Now add in the prepositional phrase:  Jesus came up out of the water.  hmm...Jesus rose from the water.

Now add in the little words (look up what they mean):  And Jesus came up immediately out of the water
Alas, what to do with the participle?  Simple...in this case just stack it onto the beginning of the sentence (but first make it an aorist passive...ie past tense passive):
"Baptized, Jesus immediatedly rose out of the water."
Do we need to smooth out the pariciple?  (Technically determine the circumstances under which it happened?)  Add any other phrases or adverbs?  We could do:
"After Jesus was baptized..." however, we cannot do "While Jesus was baptized..."  We cannot do this because the participle is aorist which means it happened before the main verb.
So, "After Jesus was baptized, he rose from the water."
2)  και ιδου ηνεωχθησαν οι ουρανοι
This is even easier.  Word for word: 
and behold opened the heavens.
The only tricky part is translating the aorist passive verb, but not really, because we have this in English:  "The heavens were opened."  (in my mind, hard translation from Greek is when we don't have something really similar...in this case we do:  Simple past passive.)  You know its aorist passive by the θησ suffix in the middle.

So, "After Jesus was baptized, he rose from the water.  And behold, the heavens were opened."

3) και ειδεν το πνευμα ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον

Let's divide up here, again, as always, trying to find subject and main verb:
και: filler
ειδεν:  main verb
το πνευμα: subject
ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον:  let's come back to it.

So if we put verb+subject together, we get " And the spirit saw.

Hmm...what is going wrong here?  Well, it turns out that the word Spirit looks the same in the nominative and accusative case.  So actually, the subject is Jesus and the spirit is the object.  "And he saw the Spirit."

ωσει περιστεραν ερχομενον επ αυτον:  Literally:  "like (a) pigeon/dove coming upon him."

Two things worth pointing out:  First, for your own exploration, notice how Mark and Matthew differ on prepositions here...
But more over, the participle here is not that hard to translate.  it is always worth sticking in the easy translation of the participle (for present, add "ing" to the end of verb; to aorist participles add "ed" to the verb) and see what happens.  In this case, the participle modifies the pigeon/dove so it works out nicely.

Final translation:
So, "After Jesus was baptized, he rose from the water. And behold, the heavens were opened.  Jesus saw the Spirit like a pigeon coming upon him."

(ΝRSV)  And when Jesus had been baptized, just as he came up from the water, suddenly the heavens were opened to him and he saw the Spirit of God descending like a dove and alighting on him.

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!"