Mark 10:35-45

Mark 10:35-45 (NRSV)

³⁵ James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” ³⁶ And he said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” ³⁷ And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” ³⁸ But Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with?” ³⁹ They replied, “We are able.” Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; ⁴⁰ but to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared.”

⁴¹ When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. ⁴² So Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. ⁴³ But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. ⁴⁵ For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”

            Mark 10:35-45 offer some hard lessons regarding suffering as a follower of Jesus and on serving as the path toward genuine leadership. Nietzsche called Christianity a slave morality, meaning it as criticism. Was he right? 

             Mark 10:35-40 is a story about Jesus involving a request from James and John. The story is part of the third pattern, in which Jesus says he must suffer, die, and rise and from the dead (10:32-34). Mark then lets us know the disciples do not understand. 

            Scholars give a great deal of attention to the place of the twelve disciples in Mark. They consider the significance of various dimensions of their story, including their response to Jesus, their mission, their lack of understanding and finally their betrayal, flight and denial. Yet, we may find one key to understanding the significance of the disciples in one of the teachings of Jesus, concerning the parable of the sower. The disciples seem to be clear illustrations of the seed sown on “rocky ground” (Mark 4:5-6). The parable of the Sower tells the story of the failures and success of a sower scattering seed on four different types of ground: on the path, on rocky ground, among thorns and into good soil (4:3-9). Jesus later interprets these soils as representing four different types of hearers of the word (4:14-20). One might link the twelve disciples with the rocky ground, since they have accepted the word immediately, with great joy, but then have stumbled away when persecutions arise on account of the word (4:16-17). In fact, Simon’s new name, Peter — from the Greek Petro is not a sign of a firm foundation for the church, but might instead be a subtle dig at a hardhearted disciple. In Mark, Simon is called “rock” for the first time in chapter 3, and then in the very next chapter Jesus introduces the “rocky ground” in which the seed begins to grow and then fails during persecutions.[1]

            The link between the disciples and the rocky ground of the parable becomes stronger as the gospel story continues. The twelve repeatedly fail to comprehend the words of Jesus and emulate his actions as they demonstrate a lack of understanding after the feeding of the four thousand (8:21), as they challenge Jesus’ teachings about his suffering and death (8:32-33), and as they seek glory instead of suffering (10:35-45). This last “rocky ground response” is here, and it contains the failure of James and John to comprehend that both Jesus and his disciples are challenged to walk the path of sacrificial service.    

            This story follows on the heels of Jesus’ third passion prediction (10:32-34), as Jesus and the disciples are about to embark on their journey toward Jerusalem. Not even the clarity of Jesus’ message can break through the disciples’ rock-hard hearts and heads, however, as Mark 10:35-45 gives us another example of the disciples’ denseness. Their desire for authority, fame and glory makes it especially hard for them to hear Jesus’ message of suffering, rejection and death. If ever there were showcase examples of selective hearing, James and John's response to Jesus' revelation in 10:33‑34 takes the prize. In Mark 8-10, the gospel writer has Jesus and his disciples play out a similar exchange three separate times.  In 8:31, 9:30-32, and 10:33-34, Jesus articulates clear predictions of his approaching rejection, his debasement and death, and his resurrection from the dead.  Each of these passion predictions are then followed by some of the most ignorant, wrong-headed comments made anywhere by the disciples.  In 8:32-33 Peter rebukes Jesus; in 9:33-34 all the disciples start clamoring about who is the greatest; and in 10:35-41 James and John start queuing up for good seats in the hereafter.  In each case, Jesus responds to his disciples’ confused comments by discussing the true essence of missionary discipleship and explaining how it differences from all the disciples’ expectations.  In 8:34-38 Jesus counsels taking up the cross; in 9:35-37 selflessness and acceptance are touted; and finally in 10:42-45 Jesus explicitly identifies service to others as the key to genuine discipleship.  

³⁵ James and John, the sons of Zebedee, came forward to him and said to him, “Teacher, we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you.” As it turns out, their desire to sit on Jesus’ right and left, strangely enough, echoes a precedent found in the extracanonical book of Jubilees. According to this legendary account, Jacob goes to visit his father Isaac. When Isaac sees his grandsons, he takes Levi in his right hand and Judah in his left hand, blesses them, and then they sleep beside their grandfather, one on the right and one on the left (Jubilees 31:5-32). At best, one might credit these disciples with echoing the final scene between Elijah and Elisha in II Kings 2:9 — there the soon-to-depart Elijah instructs his apprentice Elisha to “Tell me what I may do for you, before I am taken from you.” Yet even if that exchange is the inspiration behind James and John’s request, they overstep their bounds by initiating the asking. They are not to ask the Lord for the highest place (Ecclesiasticus 7:4). A proper attitude would be to ask how they have received such favor as to be counted the first witnesses to what God was doing in Jesus (Wisdom 5:5). Yet, as readers of this gospel, we cannot help but think of the question as a pitiful response to what Jesus has said about what will happen in Jerusalem.  ³⁶ He said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” Despite their misplaced boldness and presumptive rudeness, Jesus deals patiently with James and John. In a pathetic attempt at cleverness, these two disciples first try to charm a promise out of Jesus before revealing what is at issue. Jesus, of course, refuses to give blind assurances and forces them to articulate their desires plainly. Jesus mimics back to them without any hesitation. As if he was their servant!  ³⁷ Further, they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” They may refer to the Messianic feast or to thrones in the kingdom.  It may reflect either the messianic or the apocalyptic notions prevalent in first-century Judaism. They perceive Jesus as Messiah. They may believe Jesus is about to reclaim the throne of David. Their squabbling over most honored seating may refer to the heavenly messianic banquet. Alternatively, the disciples' reference to Jesus’ being "in your glory" could also refer to the best seats in the house at the time of the Parousia, when the ruling Son of Man will judge all creation. In either case, the concern of James and John with securing a place with priority status when Jesus assumes his place in glory is a classic case of not understanding their situation. They failed to understand the teaching about Messianic suffering. This story will underscore how little the disciples comprehend the ministry of Jesus. He has just told them of the horror that waits in Jerusalem. True, the reference to himself as the Son of Man may have triggered thoughts of the glory associated with the coming Son of Man. Instead of focusing upon the suffering, they heard that after three days he would rise. The disciples envision only this image of a risen, powerful, ruling messianic Son of Man. They seem to gloss over the graphic details of an immediate future filled with condemnation, rejection, mocking, spitting, flogging, and execution. Their focus is their role in the coming rule of God. Their eagerness to have Jesus save them the best seats in the house suggests that James and John expected this eschatological moment to arrive very shortly after they finally entered Jerusalem.  Rather like a couple of 4‑year‑olds trying to obtain permission to do something they know is not quite right; the two first seek a carte blanche approval from Jesus. Even when the brothers fully disclose their brazen, selfish, Jesus does not chastise them about the content of their request. He sees it simply as a demonstration of their hardheaded incomprehension. ³⁸ However, Jesus said to them, “You do not know what you are asking. Jesus' sharp retort reveals the ignorance and arrogance of these two disciples. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink? "The cup" has a long tradition in Hebrew Scripture as the cup filled with divine wrath and judgment from which disobedient humanity must imbibe. The prophets often employed the image of "the cup" to threaten God's vengeance on leaders and peoples who opposed the ways of God. For Jesus, then, to drink of "the cup" is his voluntary swallowing of God's judgment for our sake. Jesus drinks the cup that was intended for us. Alternatively, are you able to receive baptism with the baptism that I am baptized with?”[2] The reference to baptism here, again interpreted in pre-Christian terms, parallels that of the cup. Instead of a Hebrew image, however, Jesus' words most likely recall the rites practiced by John the Baptist ‑‑ a "baptism of repentance." As a symbol of repentance, baptism, like the cup, links to the divine judgment that awaits human sinfulness. By participating in a repentant act of baptism, Jesus again took upon himself the judgment humanity deserved.  The question refers to his impending death.  Mark also knew that Herod Agrippa in Acts 12 had martyred James. Jesus’ reply invites them to consider whether they can face the cost of sharing in Jesus’ messianic suffering.  The saying means more than martyrdom.  Rather, the cup and baptism refer to the great tribulation that James and John would endure.  One might sense here the brash confidence of the disciples.  Obviously, neither James nor John has a clue about the nature of this cup and this baptism in which Jesus asks them to participate.  When Jesus quizzes James and John about the depth of their commitment, he turns their attention away from the reward they are seeking and focuses it back upon the path leading to Jerusalem. Asking if they can share in both his cup and his baptism, Jesus throws up a roadblock on what James and John perceive as an unmarred road to glory. The cup and baptism represent the suffering that Jesus and his obedient followers will have to endure. James and John misunderstand their calling and their destiny when they quickly assert that they, too, share these symbols of commitment with Jesus. They refuse to acknowledge the truth about the impending trip to Jerusalem, and envision instead an easy go-ahead journey, free from barricades and potholes. The story of Jesus’ passion is the starkly lit symbol of the cost discipleship entails — a painful red light on the road to Jesus’ glorification. Theologically, though, we cannot merely see here an obscure allusion to the approaching path of suffering for Jesus. We must relate the images to his understanding of the baptism he received from John. Jesus linked his baptism by John to the expectation of approaching martyrdom. Only after passing through this baptism can he kindle fire on the earth. This will eventually lead to the teaching of Paul that baptism involves participation in the death and resurrection of Jesus. The idea of a baptism of blood rests on transferring the baptism of John for repentance to martyrdom. Jesus was already seeing the approaching martyrdom of himself and his disciples in the context of the water baptism he had received form John. If so, then we can understand that along with the idea of a baptism of blood for martyrs, water baptism as adopted by early Christianity had a new meaning that it appropriated from Jesus. Yet, only from the standpoint of the Easter event did the death of Jesus represent a saving event. Only then could fellowship with the death of Jesus as a martyr that grounds itself in the act of baptism count as a pledge of future salvation for the baptized and the hope of participation in the life of the risen Lord.[3] ³⁹ They replied, “We are able.” Their answer exudes ill-advised confidence; but it also indicates that they have not actually understood Jesus. Such unhesitating willingness reveals how little they understood the personal cost that lies behind these channels to the divine. Then Jesus said to them, “The cup that I drink you will drink; and with the baptism with which I am baptized, you will be baptized; To remain true to the setting of this text, we must remind ourselves that the "cup" and "baptism" held different meanings for the disciples than they would later for the communities of post‑Resurrection Christians. For the church, the cup and baptism clearly spoke about two channels of individual and communal participation in the sufferings, even the "dying" of Christ. By the second century, baptism became the symbol of the ultimate sacrifice offered by Christian martyrs. Nevertheless, for James and John, these symbols were more generally suggestive of the suffering and persecution they could expect to encounter as disciples of Jesus and the gospel.⁴⁰ However, to sit at my right hand or at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom God has been preparing.”[4] God is preparing the persons now to occupy that position. Jesus welcomes his ignorant disciples’ communion in his sacrifice — but then reveals to James and John that what they seek is not his to give. Jesus refuses to condemn the self-centered nature of James and John’s request. He does not berate them for their status-seeking. Instead, he suggests that the path that leads to such exalted positions is one they may not have considered closely enough. The reason he gives for denying their wish is surprising. The vision of Jesus has its limit. As a man, as a man he cannot see the whole picture of God’s plan for salvation. Note that the passion described in verse 34 does not mention how he will die, only that someone will kill him.  Jesus thus assures James and John that they may freely choose to participate in his suffering (the cup and his baptism) with the assurance of a place in glory, but like him, they must demonstrate obedience to suffering based on faith, not definite knowledge. Jesus refuses to discuss further any future heavenly seating arrangements. He reminds them that God alone holds the authority to make such assignments. By refusing to usurp any divine prerogative, Jesus demonstrates his own obedience to God, thus opening the door to yet another conversation about the proper roles and attitudes of true believers. All the disciples evidently need to hear this discussion repeatedly. James and John's request angers the other disciples, evidencing their fear that the two had somehow beaten them to the punch and gained some heavenly advantage over them.

 

Mark 10:41-45 is a collection of sayings on leadership with service. Still part of the third pattern, after the prophecy that Jesus will suffer, die, and rise again (10:32-34), and showing that the disciples do not understand (10:35-40), Mark now has speaking directly about discipleship. 

At about the moment an outbreak of self‑serving ambition and rivalry seems to tear apart the twelve, Jesus repeats the theme of servanthood he had tried, apparently unsuccessfully, to introduce in 9:35. Jesus responds to his disciples’ confused comments by discussing the true essence of missionary discipleship and explaining how it differences from all the disciples’ expectations. Jesus explicitly identifies service to others as the key to genuine discipleship.  

⁴¹ When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. The dialogue expands to include all the disciples. Mark does not elaborate upon the “indignation” of the other disciples at James and John’s request. The reader’s discretion and generosity of spirit lead us to surmise whether the other 10 are indignant at the foolish, self-serving, unperceiving nature of the brothers’ request, or indignant that James and John have gotten their names in first on the list for the coveted position at Jesus’ right and left hands. ⁴² Consequently, Jesus called them and said to them, “You know that among the Gentiles those whom they recognize as their rulers lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over them. ⁴³ But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, ⁴⁴ and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. Turning to all of his disciples, Jesus now elaborates more fully on what following him requires of them. Sharing in the two symbols of the cup and baptism does not mean riding on the coattails of Jesus’ impending glorification. Instead, verses 43-44 reveal that being a true disciple means a life (and death) committed to humility and service. Jesus’ message to his disciples is that even as he came to serve, so much more should they be servants for the sake of others and of the gospel. The tack Jesus now takes seems almost like an attempt to "shame" his followers into a better understanding of their discipleship. You are acting like Gentiles, Jesus admonishes. Jesus appeals to his followers to sense the essence of their uniqueness by contrasting them with Gentiles.  Jesus describes Gentile rulers as tyrants.  The disciples of Jesus who wish to be great must consign themselves to being servants.  The very highest status, in fact, will be according one who becomes slave of all.  The Son of Man, not Gentile rulers, is the one whom the disciples are to emulate — living to serve rather than having others serve them. The "Gentiles" that would most naturally spring to the disciples' minds would be the petty tyrants and bullies they knew so well and despised so deeply from Roman political life (such as Tiberius and Herod Philip).

In contrast to mimicking these Gentiles, Jesus offers his disciples a new way, a cross channel, if you will, to true discipleship. Standing common understanding on its head, Jesus declares that it is only in service that one may become great. The more lowly and servantlike the service, Jesus suggests, the greater the genuine stature of the disciple.  In the context of the order of the community, its character is that of a law of service. The law of service must always be law within an order of ministry. Privilege, claim, and dignity exist under the duty, obligation, and burden of service. ^[5]

The German philosopher, Nietzsche, called Christianity a “slave morality.” He noted that Christianity appeared to be most popular among people on the bottom of society – the poor, women, slaves. He charged that Christianity gave philosophical justification and glorification for the economic plight of those on the bottom. It taught them, said Nietzsche, that there is something good and noble in being people at the bottom. He noted that Jesus did not seem to have many friends at the top, powerful political people who made a difference in the world.

Nietzsche meant all this as a criticism. This story suggests that Christians ought to take this as a compliment.

            I invite you to ponder with me arrogance and humility. Frank Lloyd Wright said that early in life he to choose between honest arrogance and hypocritical humility. He chose the former and saw no reason to change. John Wooden once noted that talent is a gift from God, so be humble. Fame is something we receive from people, so be grateful. However, conceit is something you give to yourself, so be careful. 

Two quotations:

"I want everyone to bear witness, I am the greatest! I'm the greatest thing that ever lived. I don't have a mark on my face, and I upset Sonny Liston, and I just turned twenty-two years old. I must be the greatest. I showed the world. I talk to God everyday. I know the real God. I shook up the world; I'm the king of the world. You must listen to me. I am the greatest! I can't be beat!"

 

"Wouldn't it be a beautiful world if just 10 percent of the people who believe in the power of love would compete with one another to see who could do the most good for the most people?"

 

The two statements could hardly be more different. Yet, ironically, the same person who spoke them both: the legendary boxer, Muhammad Ali.

The first is Ali's boyish bluster from 1964, just after he defeated Sonny Liston for the first time. The second is something he wrote in his autobiography, The Soul of a Butterfly, in 2004. Forty years separate the two quotations. Forty years of living. A lot can change in half a lifetime.

Another quotation by Ali explains it: "The man who views the world at 50 the same as he did at 20 has just wasted the last 30 years of his life." Afflicted by Parkinson's disease since 1984 -- a condition likely brought on by the pummeling his body received in the ring -- Ali has been busy, until this year, as a global good-will ambassador, peace activist and advocate for the developing world. By one estimate, he has provided over 232 million meals to feed the hungry. 

When I saw him early in his career, I must confess that I liked him. I do not know why. The bragging and cockiness that made him hated I found a way to excuse. Of course, I was in my early teens at the time. His career in boxing was the only time in my life I had any interest in boxing. He seemed unbeatable. Of course, when he was beat, I kept thinking during the boxing match that he would pull it out in the end. I guess I bought into the illusion he had created.

To his credit, Ali's idea of greatness appears to have changed over time. Maybe we can expand the conversation on greatness.

History is full of men and women whom it remembers as "the Great," although they all had their weaknesses and blind spots. Alexander the Great was the Macedonian king and general who took control of the vast Persian Empire in the 4th century B.C. Tutored by Aristotle, he went on to achieve an undefeated record in military battles. Yet, Alexander was not invincible -- a lowly mosquito probably brought him down. Evidence suggests that he died of malaria at age 32.

How about Catherine the Great? She was the empress who ruled Russia from 1762 to 1796. Her greatness arose from her desire to modernize and expand Russia's holdings, as well as her creation of the country's first school for girls. Nevertheless, Catherine was not as powerful as she thought. Her rise to domination came only after her lover led a coup to depose her husband.

Another mighty ruler was Ramses the Great, Egyptian pharaoh from 1279 to 1213 B.C., who built cities, temples and monuments. The Bible does not portray him as so righteous, however. He was likely the pharaoh who enslaved the Israelites and caused Moses to lead the exodus out of Egypt.

History teaches that greatness often links with a life of illusion, one that causes people to believe that they are more invincible, powerful and righteous than they really are. Alexander was vulnerable to a mosquito, Catherine owed her power to a coup, and Ramses was unrighteous. All were "the Great," but not the greatest.

Whom would you add to the list of people in our culture who might consider themselves “great?” The problem with looking at yourself as “great” is that you live with an illusion. One illusion concerns your view of you! You are vulnerable and weak in ways you might not want to admit. You may also not realize what true greatness is.

Albert Schweitzer said, “Life becomes harder for us when we live for others, but it also becomes richer and happier.” 

I slept and dreamt that life was Joy;

Then I awoke and realized

that life was Service.

And then I went to work — and, lo

and behold I discovered that

Service is Joy.[6]

 

In a spiritual community, no leader gets privilege. With the possible exception of pastors at church potlucks, no leader gets an easy pass; no leader cuts the line; no leader gets in first or takes the best seat. Whoever wants to be a leader among you must be a servant to all the rest. A true spiritual leader serves first, and by serving leads ... through example. 

One does not generally become a leader by fighting the way to the top. One becomes a leader by helping others to the top. Helping employees is as important as trying to get the most out of them.[7] Such leaders do not run away from their calling in life. Abraham Maslow coined the phrase “the Jonah Complex” to describe the person clearly called in a certain direction in their lives, but do everything they can to avoid it. 

⁴⁵ For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many.”[8] The structure is synonymous parallelism. “Ransom” means deliverance by purchase.  It describes an act of redemption.  “For many” refers to receiving a benefit that they cannot effect.  “Many” in Christian tradition focused on a universal understanding, rather than limiting it to expiation for the Jewish people.^[9] The effect of Jesus’ life of service and giving of himself goes beyond example.  A single, all-embracing figure in whom all the themes of sin, repentance, redemption, and vindication come together.[10]  Note the link of lutron with Daniel 7 and Isaiah 53.  The statement relates to the notion of the death of Jesus “for us” and “for our sins.” The motif of expiation seems present. The image of ransom is that Jesus Christ paid by his death for us.^[11] Not “sin offering” but God acting to deliver from slavery and bring to freedom.  Thus, the text is not a proof text for substitutionary theory of atonement. One who gives his life a ransom for many acts in the place and as the representative of many, paying on their account but without their cooperation what they cannot pay for themselves.^[12]Jesus may have reckoned with the possibility of an approaching violent death, even if this does not mean that he willed or provoked this violent death. It becomes quite another matter as to whether Jesus proclaimed his death a ransom for many or as an expiatory death. If Jesus actually said that his death had an expiatory function, one would expect that the early church would have decided the meaning of his death authoritatively and unequivocally.^[13]

Jesus reminds his disciples that the Son of Man himself offers the greatest example of this paradoxical relationship between servanthood and greatness. Yes, Jesus was the man for others. Jesus lets his life be for those in infinite peril. He makes the deliverance of humanity his exclusive task. His encouragement for his followers to be servant of all arises from the man who is the chief servant.^[14]

The Son of Man willingly becomes a slave, even to death, in order to serve, indeed to save, the world. In cross channels to the world, the channel of the cross leads heavenward. It is only after Jesus’ death and resurrection that these followers fully grasp this message, and shift from being rocky-ground disciples to examples of the “good soil” in which the word can grow and bear incredible fruit (4:8).

---

[1] (Mary Ann Tolbert, “How the gospel of Mark builds character,” Interpretation, October 1993, 352-353.)

[2] Jesus does not necessarily prophecy martyrdom. Yet, for some scholars, Christian theological meaning colors Jesus’ question about his cup and baptism, from the post-Easter perspective of Mark.  Most historical‑critical exegesis analyzes these images in strict accordance with their pre‑Christian understandings. 

[3] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 3, 280-3.

[4] The idea that Jesus does not assign positions in the kingdom would hardly be something the early church would create.

[5] Barth, Church Dogmatics IV.2 [67.4] 690-1.

[6] Rabindanath Tagore.

[7] —William Cohen, The stuff of heroes: The Eight Universal Laws of Leadership, quoted on the Trinity Western University Web site, twu.ca/Leadership/sl_quotes.asp.

[8] Many view the phrase as Pauline, but Taylor rejects this.  It is not Pauline because here the vision is for the covenant people, not universal.

[9] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 424-5.

[10] C. S. Mann

[11] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 418. 

[12] Barth, Church Dogmaitcs IV.1 [59.2] 230.

[13] Pannenberg, Systematic Theology Volume 2, 416-7.

[14] Barth, Church Dogmatics III.2 [45.1] 214-5.