⁴ tc ‡ Most mss have the phrase ἐν ἡμῖν (en hēmin, “within us”) after οὐχὶ ἡ καρδία ἡμῶν καιομένη ἦν (ouchi hē kardia hēmōn kaiomenē ēn, “Didn’t our hearts burn”). The phrase “within us” is lacking in some early mss (P⁷⁵ B D c e sy^s,c). These early witnesses could have overlooked the words, since there are several occurrences of ἡμῖν in the context. But it seems likely that other scribes wanted to clarify the abrupt expression “Didn’t our hearts burn,” even as the translation has done here. NA²⁸ includes the words in brackets, indicating doubts as to their authenticity.

¹ tn The syntax of this verse is disputed, resulting in various translations. The major options are either (1) that reflected in the translation or (2) that those who have a money bag and traveler’s bag should get a sword, just as those who do not have these items should sell their cloak to buy a sword. The point of all the options is that things have changed and one now needs full provisions. Opposition will come. But “sword” is a figure for preparing to fight. See Luke 22:50-51.

¹ tc The majority of mss (א A D W Θ Ψ ƒ^1,13 M as well as several versional witnesses) begin this verse with an introductory comment, “and the Lord said,” indicating a change in the subject of discussion. But this is apparently a reading motivated by the need for clarity. Some of the best witnesses, along with a few others (P⁷⁵ B L T 1241 2542^c sy^s co), do not contain these words. The abrupt shift is the more difficult reading and thus more likely to be autographic.

³ tn On the term γαζοφυλάκιον (gazophulakion), often translated “treasury,” see BDAG 186 s.v., which states, “For Mk 12:41, 43; Lk 21:1 the mng. contribution box or receptacle is attractive. Acc. to Mishnah, Shekalim 6, 5 there were in the temple 13 such receptacles in the form of trumpets. But even in these passages the general sense of ‘treasury’ is prob., for the contributions would go [into] the treasury via the receptacles.” Based upon the extra-biblical evidence (see sn following), however, the translation opts to refer to the actual receptacles and not the treasury itself.

² tc Several mss (D ƒ¹³ [579] 700 al lat sy) add (with several variations among these witnesses) 17:36 “There will be two in the field; one will be taken and the other left.” It is not well enough attested to be original. Further, it is an assimilation to the parallel in Matt 24:40, which marks the addition as secondary. The present translation follows NA²⁸ in omitting the verse number, a procedure also followed by a number of other modern translations.

² tc Most mss have “into the house” (P^3vid א C L Ξ 33 579) or “into her house” (א¹ A C² D W Θ Ψ 070 ƒ^1,13 M lat) at the end of the sentence. But the English translation masks the multitude of variants: Different forms of “house” (οἰκίαν [oikian], οἶκον [oikon]) and “her” occur (see TCGNT 129). These variations argue against authenticity; they no doubt arose because of the abrupt ending of the sentence (the Greek is more literally translated simply as “Martha received him”), prompting copyists to add the location. The shorter reading is found in P^45,75 B sa.

¹ sn Sodom (and Gomorrah) were widely regarded as the most wicked of OT cities from the actions described in Gen 19:1-29; even in OT times their wickedness had become proverbial (Isa 1:9-10). The allusion to God’s judgment on these cities is not intended to indicate that they might be shown mercy on the day of judgment, but to warn that rejecting the messengers with their current message about the coming kingdom is even more serious than the worst sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and will result in even more severe punishment.

² tc Most mss, especially the later ones, have ἀγαπητός (agapētos, “the one I love”; A C* W ƒ¹³ 33 M it), or ἀγαπητὸς ἐν ᾧ (ἠ)υδόκησα (agapētos en hō (ē)udokēsa, “the one I love, in whom I am well pleased”; C³ D Ψ) here, instead of ἐκλελεγμένος (eklelegmenos, “the Chosen One”), but these variants are probably assimilations to Matt 17:5 and Mark 9:7. The text behind the translation also enjoys excellent support from P^45,75 א B L Ξ (579) 892 1241 co.

⁴ sn Undoubtedly the background for the concept of being the Lord’s slave or servant is to be found in the Old Testament scriptures. For a Jew this concept did not connote drudgery, but honor and privilege. It was used of national Israel at times (Isa 43:10), but was especially associated with famous OT personalities, including such great men as Moses (Josh 14:7), David (Ps 89:3; cf. 2 Sam 7:5, 8) and Elijah (2 Kgs 10:10); all these men were “servants (or slaves) of the Lord.”

³ tn On the term γαζοφυλάκιον (gazophulakion), often translated “treasury,” see BDAG 186 s.v., which states, “For Mk 12:41, 43; Lk 21:1 the mng. contribution box or receptacle is attractive. Acc. to Mishnah, Shekalim 6, 5 there were in the temple 13 such receptacles in the form of trumpets. But even in these passages the general sense of ‘treasury’ is prob., for the contributions would go [into] the treasury via the receptacles.” Based upon the extra-biblical evidence (see sn following), however, the translation opts to refer to the actual receptacles and not the treasury itself.

² tc Codex Bezae (D) replaces “Do not even go into the village” with “Go to your house, and do not tell anyone, not even in the village.” Other mss with some minor variations (Θ ƒ¹³ 28 565 2542) expand on this prohibition to read “Go to your house, and if you go into the village, do not tell anyone.” There are several other variants here as well. While these expansions are not part of Mark’s original text, they do accurately reflect the sense of Jesus’ prohibition.

² tc ‡ Most mss (P⁴⁵ A D W Θ ƒ^1,13 M lat sy) have αὐτοῦ (autou, “his”) after τοῖς μαθηταῖς (tois mathētais, “the disciples”), but several excellent witnesses (א B L Δ 33 579 892 1241 1424) lack the pronoun. This kind of variant is often a predictable expansion of the text; further, that many significant mss lack the pronoun gives support for the shorter reading. For these reasons, the pronoun is considered to be secondary. NA²⁸ puts αὐτοῦ in brackets, indicating some doubts as to its authenticity.

² sn This section in Mark (4:35-5:43) contains four miracles: (1) the calming of the storm; (2) the exorcism of the demon-possessed man; (3) the giving of life to Jairus’ daughter; (4) the healing of the woman hemorrhaging for twelve years. All these miracles demonstrate Jesus’ right to proclaim the kingdom message and his sovereign authority over forces, directly or indirectly, hostile to the kingdom. The last three may have been brought together to show that Jesus had power over all defilement, since contact with graves, blood, or a corpse was regarded under Jewish law as causing a state of ritual uncleanness.

¹ tn Grk “he will never honor his father.” Here Jesus is quoting the Pharisees, whose intent is to release the person who is giving his possessions to God from the family obligation of caring for his parents. The verb in this phrase is future tense, and it is negated with οὐ μή (ou mē), the strongest negation possible in Greek. A literal translation of the phrase does not capture the intended sense of the statement; it would actually make the Pharisees sound as if they agreed with Jesus. Instead, a more interpretive translation has been used to focus upon the release from family obligations that the Pharisees allowed in these circumstances.

² sn Sodom and Gomorrah were widely regarded as the most wicked of OT cities from the actions described in Gen 19:1-29; even in OT times their wickedness had become proverbial (Isa 1:9-10). The allusion to God’s judgment on these cities is not intended to indicate that they might be shown mercy on the day of judgment, but to warn that rejecting the messengers with their current message about the coming kingdom is even more serious than the worst sins of Sodom and Gomorrah and will result in even more severe punishment.

² tn Heb “because of the slaughter and because of the violence.” These two expressions form a hendiadys meaning “because of the violent slaughter.” Traditional understanding connects the first phrase “because of the slaughter” with the end of v. 9 (cf. KJV, NASB, NIV, NLT). It is preferable, however, to regard it as parallel to the reference to violence at the beginning of v. 11. Both the parallel linguistic structure of the two phrases and the metrical structure of the verse favor connecting this phrase with the beginning of v. 10 (cf. NRSV, TEV).

⁵ tn Heb “Would they not have left some gleanings?” The rhetorical question makes an emphatic assertion, which for the sake of clarity is represented by the indicative form in the translation. The implied answer to these rhetorical questions is “yes.” The fact that something would have remained after the imagined acts of theft or harvest stands in stark contrast to the totality of Edom’s destruction as predicted by Obadiah. Edom will be so decimated as a result of God’s judgment that nothing at all will be left

² tn Heb “I will not smell.” These verses are full of vivid descriptions of the Lord’s total rejection of Israelite worship. In the first half of this verse two verbs are used together for emphasis. Here the verb alludes to the sense of smell, a fitting observation since offerings would have been burned on the altar ideally to provide a sweet aroma to God (see, e.g., Lev 1:9, 13, 17; Num 29:36). Other senses that are mentioned include sight and hearing in vv. 22-23.

¹ sn The rhetorical questions in vv. 3-5 expect the answer, “No, of course not!” Those in v. 6 anticipate the answer, “Yes, of course they do/he is.” They all draw attention to the principle of cause and effect and lay the logical foundation for the argument in vv. 7-8. Also note the progression from a general question in v. 3 to the “meetings” of two animals (v. 4), to that of an animal and a human trap (v. 5), to a climax with the confrontation with the Lord (v. 6). Each of these meetings is disastrous.

² sn Four different words for “locust” are used in this verse. It is uncertain whether these words represent different life-stages of the locusts, or whether virtual synonyms are being used to underscore the severity of damage caused by the relentless waves of locust invasion. The latter seems more likely. Many interpreters have understood the locust plagues described here to be symbolic of invading armies that will devastate the land, but the symbolism could also work the other way, with real plagues of locusts described in the following verses as an invading army.