Gospel Notes by Michael Whelan SM
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.” And he said to them, “What is it you want me to do for you?” And they said to him, “Grant us to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your glory.” 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?” 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; 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.”
When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John. 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. But it is not so among you; but whoever wishes to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wishes to be first among you must be slave of all. For the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many” (Mark 10:35-45 – NRSV).
Introductory notes
General
The inappropriateness and the jarring effect of the request by James and John, is emphasized by the fact that it comes in the wake of clear teachings by Jesus about what is involved in being part of the kingdom – teachings that are utterly antithetical to what they have just requested:
- Mark 8:31-33: The first prophecy of the Passion followed immediately by his teaching on taking up one’s cross.
- Mark 9:30-32: The second prophecy of the Passion followed immediately by Jesus’ rebuke of the disciples for arguing about who is the greatest in the kingdom.
- Mark 10:17-32: The incident with the rich young man and a teaching concerning the danger of riches and the rewards of renunciation.
- Mark 10:32-34: The third prophecy of the Passion.
Matthew has a similar report of James and John seeking special places in the kingdom. However, Matthew says it is the mother of James and John who makes the request – see Matthew 20:20-23.
Normally Peter appears as the leader and often enough is mentioned together with James and John – see 1:29, 5:37, 9:2, 13:3 and 14:33. In this instance James and John – without Peter – seem to be seeking some kind of special arrangement with Jesus. This is the only time we find James and John acting together without Peter.
Specific
we want you to do for us whatever we ask of you: This is an outrageous request. “Their names (ie James and John) are anchored to this story because of the audacity of their request. Mark’s source for this narrative is most probably Peter, who had reason to remember and relay this story. Peter, James, and John comprised Jesus’ earthly inner circle, and the request of the brothers to exclude him from the heavenly circle in glory cannot have been soon forgotten by the chief apostle. ‘Teacher,’ they said, ‘We want you to do for us whatever we ask.’ ‘Teacher’ is the honorific title that suppliants, whether friends or foreigners, normally use in the Synoptics when making requests of Jesus. The aorist tense of the Greek verbs for ‘ask’ and ‘do’ indicates that they have a specific request in mind. The request for an assurance beforehand from Jesus betrays the brothers’ misgivings about their request. … It is self-serving, callous toward Jesus, and an offense to their comrades” (J R Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002, 321).
Another commentator observes: “For the call of Zebedee’s sons to follow Jesus see Mark 1:19–20. Throughout the gospel they along with Peter form an inner circle among the Twelve (see 5:37; 9:2; 14:33; also 1:29). This is the only incident in which they act on their own. Is Peter’s absence significant? In fact Matthew seems to have found their request so offensive that he blames it on ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee’ (Matt 20:20–21)” (J R Donahue, & D J Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002, 311).
What is it you want me to do for you?: Jesus is supremely constrained in his response. I wonder how he actually felt at that moment?
that we should sit . . : “The Dead Sea scrolls provide some important background for this Markan text. The Jewish community (probably Essenes) that apparently stood behind the several rulebooks found at Qumran was highly structured. Members with a Jewish priestly lineage stood at the head. This community also looked forward to God’s imminent intervention on their behalf in which those who in their estimation had remained faithful to the God of Israel would be vindicated on earth and would be invited to a glorious and eternal existence with the angels in the heavenly court. According to the ‘Messianic Rule’ (1QSa) their meals and community meetings were structured so as to reflect how things would be at the messianic banquet in the kingdom of God. The priest (and priest-messiah) comes first, and then the messiah of Israel, the heads of thousands, and the heads of the congregation’s clans in a descending order of status (see 1QSa 2:11–22). There is a kind of mutual relationship envisioned here between the community meal and the future messianic banquet, in which rank and honor are very important factors.
“While the Qumran text is better taken as a parallel than as a direct source it does help us to see what was at stake in Jesus’ disciples’ debate about rank in the Jesus movement and about honor in the coming kingdom of God. In a society that prized status and honor Jesus’ disciples want to know where they stand (see 9:33–37) and what place they could expect in the kingdom (10:35–40). But the responses that they get from Jesus in 9:33–37 and 10:41–45 serve to reveal how badly they misunderstand Jesus.
“According to Jesus true greatness involves the service of others. His ideal of servant leadership should prevail among his disciples during his earthly ministry. The same ideal exposes the foolishness of speculations about preeminence in the coming kingdom” (J R Donahue, & D J Harrington, op cit, 315).
in your glory: “For other Markan references to the glorious parousia of Jesus see 8:38; 13:26; and 14:62. The disciples’ willingness to ignore the content of Jesus’ very detailed Passion prediction reveals the depth of their misunderstanding of him” (Ibid).
The cup that I drink you will drink etc: Jesus assures the two disciples that they will indeed share his journey and ultimately his triumph. But you would have to wonder whether James and John – these “sons of thunder” (see Mark 3:17) – have any idea of what Jesus is telling them.
When the ten heard this, they began to be angry with James and John: Of course! However, we can wonder what actually motivated their anger. Were “the ten” nurturing similar ambitions? And what was Peter thinking?
So Jesus called them and said to them etc: “He ‘summoned them’ would be more appropriate, for the Gk. proskaleomai occurs on nine occasions in Mark when Jesus gathers the disciples and/or crowds for a decisive lesson. The world, says Jesus, practices leadership from a model of dominance, authority, and the effective uses of power and position … At no place do the ethics of the kingdom of God clash more vigorously with the ethics of the world than in the matters of power and service. The ideas that Jesus presents regarding rule and service are combined in a way that finds no obvious precedent in either the OT or Jewish tradition. In a decisive reversal of values, Jesus speaks of greatness in service rather than greatness of power, prestige, and authority: ‘whoever wants to become great among you must be your servant, and whoever wants to be first must be slave of all’ (see 9:35; Luke 22:24–27). The preeminent virtue of God’s kingdom is not power, not even freedom, but service. Ironically, greatness belongs to the one who is not great, the diakonos, the ordinary Greek word for waiting on tables …. The preeminence of service in the kingdom of God grows out of Jesus’ teaching on love for one’s neighbor, for service is love made tangible” (J R Edwards, op cit, 324 & 325-326).
Christian realism
In today’s Gospel – Mark 10:35-45 – we glimpse one of those moments when the Church is on display as a vulnerable human organization. Typically, in Mark’s Gospel, Peter, James and John are mentioned together. For example, at the Transfiguration: “Jesus took with him Peter and James and John, and led them up a high mountain apart, by themselves” (Mark 9:2). See also 5:37, 13:3 and 14:33. These three, together, constitute some kind of inner circle of Jesus’ disciples. However, as one commentator notes, there is an exception here: “This is the only incident in which (James and John) act on their own. Is Peter’s absence significant? In fact Matthew seems to have found their request so offensive that he blames it on ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee’ (Matt 20:20–21)” (J R Donahue, & D J Harrington, The Gospel of Mark, Collegeville, MN: The Liturgical Press, 2002, 311).
As always, the context helps us to understand a little better what is happening. The disciples are travelling with Jesus on the road to Jerusalem – see 10:32. Peter, James and John have witnessed the Transfiguration. No doubt they would have shared their excitement about what they witnessed with their companions. The disciples would surely have concluded the extraordinary event on Mount Tabor had something to do with the promised “kingdom” and this journey they are on. Whilst they are excited, however, they are anything but clear about the “kingdom” and the full implications of the journey to Jerusalem, despite the fact that Jesus has three times told them what is going to happen there. They are afraid to ask Jesus what he means about those prophecies of the passion and death that await him in Jerusalem – see 9:32. They argue about which of them is the greatest – see 9:34. Mark captures their mood: “They were amazed, and those who followed were afraid” (10:32).
There are at least two significant things we might conclude concerning this story of James and John which, scholars generally agree, would have been told to Mark by Peter. Firstly, James and John’s request is “is self-serving, callous toward Jesus, and an offense to their comrades” (J R Edwards, The Gospel according to Mark, Grand Rapids, MI; Leicester, England: Eerdmans; Apollos, 2002, 321). Secondly, it looks very much like a power play in which Peter – the obvious leader – is being outflanked.
There are different, legitimate ways to think of the Church. But we must never forget that it is a human organization, always in need of renewal and purification. The Second Vatican Council recognized this in its ground-breaking Dogmatic Constitution on the Church (Lumen Gentium): “The Church, embracing in its bosom sinners, at the same time holy and always in need of being purified, always follows the way of penance and renewal” (#8).
Grace does not remove the tragic line that runs through every human heart. Rather it enables us to grow as we experience it and face the truth of it.