³ sn The form of the question assumes a positive reply. It really amounts to an objection, as Jesus’ response in the next verses shows. Jesus spoke smoothly and impressively. He made a wonderful declaration, but could a local carpenter’s son make such an offer? That was their real question.

⁵ sn The release in view here is comprehensive, both at a physical level and a spiritual one, as the entire ministry of Jesus makes clear (Luke 1:77-79; 7:47; 24:47; Acts 2:38; 5:31; 10:43).

⁴ sn The parenthetical remark as was supposed makes it clear that Joseph was not the biological father of Jesus. But a question still remains whose genealogy this is. Mary is nowhere mentioned, so this may simply refer to the line of Joseph, who would have functioned as Jesus’ legal father, much like stepchildren can have when they are adopted by a second parent.

⁴ tn The term translated “accusation” (συκοφαντήσητε, sukophantēsēte) refers to a procedure by which someone could bring charges against an individual and be paid a part of the fine imposed by the court. Soldiers could do this to supplement their pay, and would thus be tempted to make false accusations.

¹ sn Is the phrase all peoples a reference to Israel alone, or to both Israel and the Gentiles? The following verse makes it clear that all peoples includes Gentiles, another key Lukan emphasis (Luke 24:47; Acts 10:34-43).

¹ tn The term συμβάλλουσα (sumballousa) suggests more than remembering. She is trying to put things together here (Josephus, Ant. 2.5.3 [2.72]). The words “what they might mean” have been supplied in the translation to make this clear. Direct objects were frequently omitted in Greek when clear from the context.

¹ tn Grk “according to the custom of the priesthood it fell to him by lot.” The order of the clauses has been rearranged in the translation to make it clear that the prepositional phrase κατὰ τὸ ἔθος τῆς ἱερατείας (kata to ethos tēs hierateias, “according to the custom of the priesthood”) modifies the phrase “it fell to him by lot” rather than the preceding clause.

³ sn Who has authority over the seas and winds is discussed in the OT: Pss 104:3; 135:7; 107:23-30. When Jesus rebuked the wind and the sea he was making a statement about who he was.

¹ sn The three conditional statements in vv. 24-26 express the logical result of the assumption that Jesus heals by Satan’s power, expressed by the religious leaders. The point is clear: If the leaders are correct, then Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

¹ sn The statement the bridegroom will be taken from them is a veiled allusion by Jesus to his death, which he did not make explicit until the incident at Caesarea Philippi in 8:27ff. (cf. 8:31; 9:31; 10:33).

² sn Jesus’ teaching impressed the hearers with the directness of its claim; he taught with authority. A study of Jewish rabbinic interpretation shows that it was typical to cite a list of authorities to make one’s point. Apparently Jesus addressed the issues in terms of his own understanding.

¹ tn This first class condition, the first of three “if” clauses in the following verses, presents the example vividly as if it were so. In fact, all three conditions in these verses are first class. The examples are made totally parallel. The expected answer is that Satan’s kingdom will not stand, so the suggestion makes no sense. Satan would not seek to heal.

¹ sn ‘We played the flute for you, yet you did not dance…’ The children of this generation were making the complaint (see vv. 18-19) that others were not playing the game according to the way they played the music. John and Jesus did not follow “their tune.” Jesus’ complaint was that this generation wanted things their way, not God’s.

³ tn Grk “a man mute, demon-possessed.” Some translations infer a causal relationship here (“was mute because he was demon-possessed”; cf. TEV, CEV). The present translation allows for this interpretation (“was demon-possessed and [thus] unable to speak”) without making it explicit.

¹ tn The aorist verb has been translated here as ingressive, stressing the beginning of the action. So Wallace: “The following verse makes it clear that an ingressive idea is meant, for the blind men are still following Jesus” (ExSyn 559).

³ tn The referent of “his” is somewhat ambiguous although context makes it clear that Peter is in view. In addition, the parallels in Mark 1:30 and Luke 4:38 both specify that it was “Simon’s” [i.e., Peter’s] mother-in-law.

¹ tn Grk “did we not in your name prophesy and in your name cast out demons and in your name do many powerful deeds.” The phrase “in your name” occurs before each of the verbs in the Greek text, making it somewhat emphatic, but the phrase was placed after the verbs in the translation for stylistic reasons.

¹ sn Jesus’ teaching impressed the hearers with the directness of its claim; he taught with authority. A study of Jewish rabbinic interpretation shows that it was typical to cite a list of authorities to make one’s point. Jesus addressed the issues directly, in terms of his own understanding, without citing other teachers.

¹ sn The rhetorical question Do we not all have one father? by no means teaches the “universal fatherhood of God,” that is, that all people equally are children of God. The reference to the covenant in v. 10 as well as to Israel and Judah (v. 11) makes it clear that the referent of “we” is God’s elect people.

¹ tn The Hebrew phrase בִּירוּשָׁלָם (birushalam) with the verb נִלְחַם (nilkham, “make war”) would ordinarily suggest that Judah is fighting against Jerusalem (so NAB, CEV). While this could happen accidentally, the context here favors the idea that Judah is fighting alongside Jerusalem against a common enemy. The preposition ב (b), then, should be construed as locative (“at”; cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NRSV, NLT).