⁵ tn Grk “Man, your sins are forgiven you.” Luke stresses the forgiveness of sins (cf. 1:77; 3:3; 24:47). In 5:20 he uses both the perfect ἀφέωνται and the personal pronoun σοι which together combine to heighten the subjective aspect of the experience of forgiveness. The σοι has been omitted in translation in light of normal English style.

³ tn Or “Rob no one.” The term διασείσητε (diaseisēte) here refers to “shaking someone.” In this context it refers to taking financial advantage of someone through violence, so it refers essentially to robbery. Soldiers are to perform their tasks faithfully. A changed person is to carry out his tasks in life faithfully and without grumbling.

⁴ tc A few mss (C* Θ ƒ¹ 33 pc) add “by you” here. This looks like a scribal addition to bring symmetry to the first three clauses of the angel’s message (note the second person pronoun in the previous two clauses), and is too poorly supported to be seriously considered as authentic.

³ tn The plural verb is used here on the probability that the crowd acted as individuals, each person praying on their own but at the same time. English versions are divided on how they handle this; see, e.g., NRSV, HCSB, which have the singular verb “was praying.”

² sn Jesus was more than a Nazarene to this blind person, who saw quite well that Jesus was Son of David. There was a tradition in Judaism that the Son of David (Solomon) had great powers of healing (Josephus, Ant. 8.2.5 [8.42-49]).

¹ sn Which is easier is a reflective kind of question. On the one hand to declare sins are forgiven is easier, since one does not need to see it, unlike telling a paralyzed person to walk. On the other hand, it is harder, because for it to be true one must possess the authority to forgive the sin.

² sn This was an idiom for hypocrisy—just as the wall was painted on the outside but something different on the inside, so this person was not what he appeared or pretended to be (for discussion of a similar metaphor, see L&N 88.234; BDAG 1010 s.v. τοῖχος). See Ezek 13:10-16; Acts 23:3.

¹ tn The translation “had better listen!” captures the force of the third person imperative more effectively than the traditional “let him hear,” which sounds more like a permissive than an imperative to the modern English reader. This was Jesus’ common expression to listen and heed carefully (cf. Matt 13:9, 43; Mark 4:9, 23; Luke 8:8; 14:35).

² sn A similar exhortation is found in 4 Macc 13:14-15, reflecting the view of Judaism in the intertestamental period. The statement here assumes there is more to a person than a body. As J. Nolland states, “Fear of God is to displace fear of death-dealing persecutors. The stakes are higher with God” (Matthew [NIGTC], 436).

² sn The issue here is inappropriate associations (on the status of tax collectors see the note at 5:46; the phrase often occurs in the NT in collocation with sinners). Jews were very careful about personal associations and contact as a matter of ritual cleanliness. Their question borders on an accusation that Jesus is ritually unclean because of who he associates with.

¹ tn Or “sound” (so L&N 23.132 and most scholars). A few scholars take this word to mean something like “generous” here (L&N 57.107). partly due to the immediate context concerning money, in which case the “eye” is a metonymy for the entire person (“if you are generous”).

¹ tn The pronouns in this verse are singular while the pronouns in vv. 19-20 are plural. The change to singular emphasizes personal responsibility as opposed to corporate responsibility; even if others do not listen, the individual who hears Jesus’ commands is responsible to obey.

¹ tn Grk “be sons of your Father in heaven.” Here, however, the focus is not on attaining a relationship (becoming a child of God) but rather on being the kind of person who shares the characteristics of God himself (a frequent meaning of the Semitic idiom “son of”). See L&N 58.26.

² tn Heb “every man who does this, him who is awake and him who answers.” The idea seems to be a merism expressing totality, that is, everybody from the awakener to the awakened, thus “every last person who does this” (NLT similar); NIV “whoever he may be.”

¹ sn Though the statement “I hate divorce” may (and should) be understood as a comprehensive biblical principle, the immediate context suggests that the divorce in view is that of one Jewish person by another in order to undertake subsequent marriages. The injunction here by no means contradicts Ezra’s commands to Jewish men to divorce their heathen wives (Ezra 9-10).

¹ tn Heb “he,” in which case the referent is the Lord. This reading is followed by KJV, ASV, NAB (which renders it as first person), and NASB. The LXX reads “they,” referring to the Israelites themselves, a reading followed by many modern English versions (e.g., NIV, NRSV, TEV, NLT).

³ tn Heb “Damascus its resting place.” The third person masculine singular suffix on “resting place” (מְנֻחָתוֹ, m^enukhato), however, precludes “land” or even “Hadrach,” both of which are feminine, from being the antecedent. Most likely “word” (masculine) is the antecedent, i.e., the “word of the Lord” is finding its resting place, that is, its focus in or on Damascus.

¹ tn Heb “under the vine and under the fig tree,” with the Hebrew article used twice as a possessive pronoun (cf. NASB “his”). Some English translations render this as second person rather than third (NRSV “your vine”; cf. also NAB, NCV, TEV).

² tn The Hebrew term הַשָּׂטָן (hassatan, “the satan”) suggests not so much a personal name (as in almost all English translations) but an epithet, namely, “the adversary.” This evil being is also described this way in Job 1 and 2 and possibly 1 Chr 21:1.

¹ sn My Spirit. It is theologically anachronistic to understand “Spirit” here in the NT sense as a reference to third person of the Trinity, the Holy Spirit; nevertheless during this postexilic period the conceptual groundwork was being laid for the doctrine of the Holy Spirit later revealed in the NT.