¹ sn The order of Luke’s temptations differs from Matthew’s at this point as numbers two and three are reversed. It is slightly more likely that Luke has made the change to put the Jerusalem temptation last, as Jerusalem is so important to Luke’s later account. The temporal markers in Matthew’s account are also slightly more specific.

⁵ tn The construction of the genealogy is consistent throughout as a genitive article (τοῦ, tou) marks sonship. Unlike Matthew’s genealogy, this one runs from Jesus down. It also goes all the way to Adam, not stopping at Abraham as Matthew’s does. Jesus has come for all races of humanity. Both genealogies go through David.

³ sn This is the only mention of Samaritans or Samaria in the Gospel of Matthew.

² sn The mention of David begins a series of agreements with Matthew’s line. The OT background is 1 Chr 2:1-15 and Ruth 4:18-22.

² sn Matthew’s wording suggests that both of the criminals spoke abusively to him. If so, one of them quickly changed his attitude toward Jesus (see Luke 23:40-43).

³ sn While in Matthew’s account the centurion came to him asking for help, Luke’s account (7:1-10) mentions that the centurion sent some Jewish elders as emissaries on his behalf.

² sn I am with you. Matthew’s Gospel begins with the prophecy that the Savior’s name would be “Emmanuel, that is, ‘God with us,’” (1:23, in which the author has linked Isa 7:14 and 8:8, 10 together) and it ends with Jesus’ promise to be with his disciples forever. The Gospel of Matthew thus forms an inclusio about Jesus in his relationship to his people that suggests his deity.

⁴ sn It is possible that Levi is a second name for Matthew because people often used alternative names in 1st century Jewish culture.

² tn Or “sea.” See the note on “lake” in v. 16. John uses the phrase ἐπί (epi, “on”) followed by the genitive (as in Mark, instead of Matthew’s ἐπί followed by the accusative) to describe Jesus walking “on the lake.”

¹ sn Witness is also one of the major themes of John’s Gospel. The Greek verb μαρτυρέω (martureō) occurs 33 times (compare to once in Matthew, once in Luke, 0 in Mark) and the noun μαρτυρία (marturia) 14 times (0 in Matthew, once in Luke, 3 times in Mark).

¹ tn Luke’s term παρένεγκε is not as exact as the one in Matt 26:39. Luke’s means “take away” (BDAG 772 s.v. παρένεγκε 2.c) while Matthew’s means “take away without touching,” suggesting an alteration (if possible) in God’s plan. For further discussion see D. L. Bock, Luke (BECNT), 2:1759-60.

² sn Unlike the portrayal of the demoniac in the parallel passage in Mark 5:5-6 which evokes some pity for the afflicted man, Matthew’s account merely suggests the demoniacs were a public nuisance: they were extremely violent and rendered the road impassable.

¹ sn The use of Nathan here as the son of David is different than Matthew, where Solomon is named. Nathan was David’s third son. It is not entirely clear what causes the difference. Some argue Nathan stresses a prophetic connection, but it is not clear how (through confusion with the prophet Nathan?). Others note the absence of a reference to Jeconiah later, so that here there is a difference to show the canceling out of this line. The differences appear to mean that Matthew’s line is a “royal and physical” line, while Luke has a “royal and legal” line.

¹ tn Matthew’s account does not qualify this individual as “a leader of the synagogue” as do the parallel accounts in Mark 5:22 and Luke 8:41, both of which also give the individual’s name as Jairus. The traditional translation of the Greek term ἄρχων (archōn) as “ruler” could in this unqualified context in Matthew suggest a political or other form of ruler, so here the translation “leader” is preferred (see BDAG 140 s.v. ἄρχων 2.a).

² sn Mark does not explicitly identify the young man dressed in a white robe as an angel (though the white robe suggests this), but Matthew does (Matt 28:2).

⁴ tn Grk “in the house.” The Greek article is used here in a context that implies possession, and the referent of the implied possessive pronoun (Matthew) has been specified in the translation for clarity.

³ tn Mark 6:8 allows one staff. It is possible that Matthew’s “two” with regard to the tunics (NET “an extra tunic”) extends to cover the sandals and staff as well (although “staff” is singular), making this a summary (cf. Luke 9:3) meaning not taking an extra pair of sandals or an extra staff (like the tunics). It is also possible the expression is merely rhetorical for “traveling light” which has been rendered in two slightly different ways.

² tn Or perhaps “because they had been bewildered and helpless.” The grammatical issue is whether the perfect participles are to be regarded as predicate adjectives or as pluperfect periphrastic constructions (i.e., εἰμί in the indicative plus a perfect participle). Wallace regards these as pluperfect periphrastics, stating: “There may be a hint in Matthew’s use of the pluperfect, esp. in collocation with the shepherd-motif, that this situation would soon disappear” (ExSyn 584).

² sn The phrase hate your enemy does not occur explicitly in the OT, but was commonly inferred from passages like Deut 7:2; 30:7; Ps 26:5; Ps 139:21-22. Jesus’ hearers (and Matthew’s readers) would not have been surprised by the statement. It is the antithesis Jesus gives in the following verses that would have shocked them.

¹ tn Or “did not have sexual relations”; Grk “was not knowing her.” The verb “know” (in both Hebrew and Greek) is a frequent biblical euphemism for sexual relations. However, a translation like “did not have sexual relations with her” was considered too graphic in light of the popularity and wide use of Matthew’s infancy narrative. Thus the somewhat less direct but still clear “did not have marital relations” was preferred.