Not a bad commentary. But not a terribly good one either. I don't really like the format of the NIV Application commentary series.
Here are a few of my favorite quotes.
Because David prayed: “Test me, O LORD, and try me; examine my heart and my mind” (Ps. 26:2), some rabbis thought it was proper to place oneself in temptation, where our faith and obedience are put to the test, in order to overcome it (b. Abod Zar 17ab). Temptations were viewed as spiritual muscle-builders for the faithful. Jesus does not take this view. We should pray, ever mindful of the weakness of the flesh, for the cup to be removed. We are weak; and if we are not strengthened by God’s power, we will always fail.
Brown writes that Mark and his readers probably held Peter and his disciples as “saintly witnesses.” He goes on to say: "But Mark uses the Gospel to stress that such witness to Jesus did not come easily or under the disciples’ own impetus.… Mark is offering a pedagogy of hope based on the initial failure of the most famous followers of Jesus and a second chance for them. He may have in mind readers who failed initially or became discouraged by the thought of the cross. He is issuing parenetic warnings against the danger of being scandalized or falling away from faith and against overconfidence."
The biblical lament begins by invoking God’s name in a cry of distress and a frank expression of grievance against him. The mourner outlines the distress, expresses perplexity at the apparent triumph of enemies, and urgently prays for relief. The lament concludes with an expression of trust, thanksgiving, and confidence that God has heard. Many Christians today shy away from ever crying aloud to God or making an outcry of reproach when they are not rescued. Some do not feel that they can lay bare their true emotions to God, including their anger. They feel that such honesty reflects a deficiency of faith or blasphemous gall. This timidity may in fact reflect a sense of distance and alienation from God, because they fear that God might reject them if they are too complaining in an hour of trial.
his grammatical irregularity may explain the admonition, “Let the reader understand.” Modern Christians possess individual Bibles and study them privately, and we naturally assume that this aside advises an individual reader poring over the Gospel of Mark to take a hint (see Dan. 12:9–10).
But a hint about what? In contrast to the leads John gives in Revelation 13:11–18 to help identify the second beast, Mark offers no clues about what the reader is supposed to understand. Because we view Bible reading as something done mostly in private, most modern readers would not consider the possibility that Mark included this narrative aside for the one who publicly read the Gospel to the assembly (see Rev. 1:3). Individual copies of Scripture were rare, and it is more likely that this note instructs the one reading in Greek not to correct the masculine participle with a neuter noun out of some mistaken grammatical sensitivity. What Mark has written, he has written deliberately. The masculine participle makes “the abomination” refer to a person.20 Best likens it to our modern sic that is placed after a word that seems odd or misspelled: “But when you see that thing, the abomination of desolation, standing where he [sic] should not be.…”21