¹ tc Most later witnesses (א² M sy) add “fasting and” (τῇ νηστείᾳ καί, tē nēsteia kai) before “prayer.” But such an addition is motivated by ascetic concerns; further, its lack in P^11vid,46 א* A B C D F G P Ψ 33 1739 1881 2464 al latt co argues decisively against its authenticity.

⁴ sn Paul’s threefold claim to be innocent with respect to the law…the temple and Caesar argues that he has not disturbed the peace at any level. This was the standard charge made against early Christians (Luke 23:2; Acts 17:6-7). The charges here are emphatically denied, with the Greek conjunction oute repeated before each charge.

³ sn That is, the law of Moses. Paul was claiming that he legitimately worshiped the God of Israel. He was arguing that this amounted to a religious dispute rather than a political one, so that the Roman authorities need not concern themselves with it.

³ sn Customs that are not lawful for us to accept or practice. Ironically, the charges are similar to those made against Jesus in Luke 23:2, where Jews argued he was “twisting” their customs. The charge has three elements: (1) a racial element (Jewish); (2) a social element (unlawful); and (3) a traditional element (not their customs).

³ sn At the beginning is an allusion to Acts 2 and Pentecost. The beginning is a way to refer to the start of the period of the realization of Jesus’ promise in Luke 24:49 and Acts 1:8. Peter was arguing that God gave Gentiles the same benefits he gave the Jews at the start of their mission.

² tn Although it is possible to argue that ἄνθρωπος (anthrōpos) should be translated “person” here since it is not necessarily masculinity that is in view in Caiaphas’ statement, “man” was retained in the translation because in 11:47 “this man” (οὗτος ὁ ἄνθρωπος, outos ho anthrōpos) has as its referent a specific individual, Jesus, and it was felt this connection should be maintained.

³ tn “Discussing so intently” translates the reciprocal idea conveyed by πρὸς ἀλλήλους (pros allēlous). The term ἀντιβάλλω (antiballō), used only here in the NT, has the nuance of “arguing” or “debating” a point (the English idiom “to exchange words” also comes close).

² sn Jesus looked to a celebration in the kingdom to come when the Passover is fulfilled. This reference could well suggest that some type of commemorative sacrifice and meal will be celebrated then, as the antecedent is the Passover sacrifice. The reference is not to the Lord’s supper as some argue, but the Passover.

¹ sn The point is a dilemma. In a world arguing a person should have one spouse, whose wife will she be in the afterlife? The question was designed to show that (in the opinion of the Sadducees) resurrection leads to a major problem.

¹ tc Most mss (A [D] W [Ψ] ƒ¹³ 33^vid M latt) read “Jesus looking up, saw him and said.” The words “saw him and” are not in א B L T Θ ƒ¹ 579 1241 2542 co. Both the testimony for the omission and the natural tendency toward scribal expansion argue for the shorter reading here.

¹ tn Some argue this should be translated “suddenly.” When vindication comes it will be quick. But the more natural meaning is “soon.” God will not forget his elect and will respond to them. It may be that this verse has a prophetic perspective. In light of the eternity that comes, vindication is soon.

³ sn Jesus argues that he will get no respect in his own hometown. There is a wordplay here on the word acceptable (δεκτός, dektos), which also occurs in v. 19: Jesus has declared the “acceptable” year of the Lord (here translated year of the Lord’s favor), but he is not “accepted” by the people of his own hometown.

³ sn Until a more opportune time. Though some have argued that the devil disappears until Luke 22:3, this is unlikely since the cosmic battle with Satan and all the evil angels is consistently mentioned throughout Luke (8:26-39; 11:14-23).

² sn But the one who endures to the end will be saved. Jesus was not claiming here that salvation is by works because he had already taught that it is by grace (cf. 10:15). He was simply arguing that genuine faith evidences itself in persistence through even the worst of trials.

⁵ tn The meaning of the term μωρός (mōros) is somewhat disputed. Most take it to mean, following the Syriac versions, “you fool,” although some have argued that it represents a transliteration into Greek of the Hebrew term מוֹרֵה (moreh) “rebel” (Deut 21:18, 20; cf. BDAG 663 s.v. μωρός c).

² tn Heb “double.” However, usage in Deut 15:18 and probably Isa 40:2 argues for “full compensation.” This is supported also by usage in a tablet from Alalakh in Syria. See P. C. Craigie, P. H. Kelley, J. F. Drinkard, Jeremiah 1-25 (WBC), 218, for bibliography.

⁴ tn The Hebrew particle כִּי (ki) can scarcely be causal here; it is either intensive (BDB 472 s.v. כִּי 1.e) or concessive (BDB 473 s.v. כִּי 2.c). The parallel usage in Gen 18:20 argues for the intensive force, as does the fact that the concessive has already been expressed by אִם (ʾim).

² sn The concern is that in arguing with one person a secret about another might be divulged, perhaps deliberately in an attempt to clear oneself. The point then is about damaging a friendship by involving the friend without necessity or warrant in someone else’s quarrel.

¹ tn The construction uses the verb יָרִיב (yariv) with its cognate accusative. It can mean “to strive,” but here it probably means “to argue a case, plead a case” (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV). How the Lord will do this is not specified—either through righteous people or by direct intervention.

¹ sn The verse uses synonymous parallelism, so “friend” and “relative” are equated. Others, however, will take the verse with antithetical parallelism: W. G. Plaut argues that friendship is a spiritual relationship whereas a brother’s ties are based on a blood relationship—often adversity is the only thing that brings brothers together (Proverbs, 189).