Mark 10:32-43 | Session 40 | Mark Rightly Divided

Click below for a PDF version
https://humble-sidecar-837.notion.site/Mark-10-32-43-Session-40-Mark-Rightly-Divided-8ba82fecd0d2406bbb4e7523fb34372c?pvs=4

The Third Prophecy of Death | Mark 10:32-34

Verse 32 -

In this verse, there's a noticeable shift in the setting, adopting a more ominous tone. Since chapter 8, Jesus has been moving from one place to another, aiming to evade an untimely arrest. However, at this juncture, we see him "going up to Jerusalem." It's important to note that "going up to Jerusalem" does not mean they are close. Actually, they are likely traveling south in Perea toward Jericho, where they will then turn west toward Jerusalem. This route keeps them out of the wilderness area that would be treacherous for traveling. Mark underlines that "Jesus went before them: and they were amazed; and as they followed, they were afraid." Ordinarily, there would be nothing remarkable about Jesus leading the way, nor anything to fear. But this time, an ominous sense is felt as, even though they do not comprehend what is to occur, they recognize that heading to Jerusalem will be fraught with danger. It wouldn't require a theological "rocket scientist" to discern that Jesus will either be arrested or he will commence the battle that will culminate in the establishment of the Davidic throne.

Once again, Jesus pulls the twelve aside to tell them exactly what is going to happen.

Verses 33-34 -

In these verses, Jesus presents the third prophecy of His forthcoming death, burial, and resurrection. This prophecy follows two previous ones found in Mark 8:31-32 and 9:30-32. This third prophecy is arguably the most detailed of the three. In fact, Jesus' explanation is so clear that it's almost impossible to misunderstand. Yet, the twelve apostles seem to fail to comprehend what He's saying.

Is their failure to understand a case of God-imposed blindness on their part, preventing them from fully grasping the reality of the situation? Or is it a simple case of cognitive dissonance, where they are hearing one thing from Jesus but choosing to believe another? There is clearly a God-imposed blindness (see Luke 18:34 and John 12:16). However, that blindness may be easier to initiate on God’s part than we may think. When people are confronted with information that conflicts with their beliefs or expectations, they experience psychological discomfort (dissonance). This discomfort can lead them to reject or reinterpret the information to reduce the dissonance. The disciples expected a conquering Messiah who would liberate Israel from Roman rule. This deeply ingrained conviction would have made it difficult for them to accept Jesus’ predictions of suffering and death. The fact that the verses that follow speak of the future reign could be used as strong evidence that the twelve had only one thing on their mind and would reject all other considerations.

In this third prophecy, Jesus provides a far more detailed explanation of his impending death, burial, and resurrection than he does in previous accounts in Mark. He outlines the events with such clarity that, at least after the fact, it would be nearly impossible to misconstrue his words.

After Jesus' resurrection, the apostles came to understand the prophecies Jesus had made about His death and resurrection. In the book of Luke, it states, "Then opened he their understanding, that they might understand the scriptures" (Luke 24:45). This marks a shift in the apostles' comprehension following the resurrection, allowing them to grasp the true meaning of Jesus' words and prophecies. Similarly, John 2:22 reads, "When therefore he was risen from the dead, his disciples remembered that he had said this unto them; and they believed the scripture, and the word which Jesus had said." The disciples fully understood and believed Jesus' prophecies only after His death and resurrection.

James And John Seek A Position | Mark 10:34-45

Verses 34-35 -

In response to Jesus' grim prophecy about His imminent suffering, James and John counter with a rather selfish query about reigning with Him in glory. This indicates how deaf and blind they were to the gravity of Jesus' words. They audaciously request Jesus to grant "whatsoever we shall desire." Jesus, displaying either compassion or determination, does not scold them but instead inquires, "What would ye that I should do for you?" Observing the confusion within His disciples must have elicited a mix of profound personal pain and a hint of amusement for Jesus.

Verse 37 -

The disciples, James and John, ask Jesus for positions of prominence and power "in thy glory." This phrase refers to the coming messianic age, which they believed was imminent, likely coinciding with their arrival in Jerusalem. While they anticipated a battle, they were also expecting a victory. This expectation is one of the reasons why the disciples were so devastated when Jesus died, and the expected victory did not materialize.

It's important to revisit the often-held belief that people before the crucifixion placed their faith in the future event, while those after the crucifixion place their faith in the past event. This view is fundamentally flawed. There is no evidence to suggest that anyone placed faith in the crucifixion before it occurred. Even the prophecies of such were concealed from their understanding, so how could they have been relying on it for salvation?

It is also worth noting that the disciples were in full expectation of an earthly, theocratic kingdom in a geopolitical sense. While Jesus is about to rebuke their methods and priorities, He does not rebuke their understanding.

Verse 38 -

Jesus responds to the disciples by expressing that they don't fully understand what they're asking for. He poses two rhetorical and metaphorical questions: "Can you drink the cup that I drink?" and "Can you be baptized with the baptism I am baptized with?" Clearly, Jesus is not referring to a literal drink or a water baptism here. Instead, these are figurative expressions used to convey the idea of suffering and trials that He would soon face.

This figurative language usage aids our understanding of textual context in other areas. For instance, unless the context explicitly mentions something other than a beverage or water baptism, we should typically assume that references to "cups" and "baptism" involve liquid. While such knowledge isn't crucial for interpreting this specific verse, it serves as a foundational understanding for interpreting other passages.

Verse 39 -

The disciples' response of "we can" likely exhibits a confidence that doesn't fully grasp the upcoming events that Jesus speaks of. Furthermore, they probably do not understand the difficulty and cost of what they are committing to. This is akin to Peter's bold assertion that he will not deny Jesus, only to do so at a critical moment (Matthew 26:33-35). Their bold claims and requests demonstrate a lack of understanding of the full implications of what is about to happen, particularly in the context of his impending suffering and death.

This interaction can be seen as a prophetic foreshadowing of the fates of James and John. James, as recorded in Acts 12, was martyred by King Herod Agrippa I, becoming the first of the apostles to be killed for his faith. John, on the other hand, faced a different kind of trial. He was exiled to the Isle of Patmos, where he lived in isolation. It was during this time that he received the visions that make up the Book of Revelation. Thus, in retrospect, their confident assertion that they could drink from the same cup as Jesus and undergo the same baptism took on a deeper, more poignant meaning.

Verse 40 -

Jesus explains that it's not His decision who will sit at His right or left in His glory. As stated in Matthew 20:23, this decision is up to the Father. Yet, the Bible does not clarify for whom these places are reserved.

Verse 41 -

When the other ten disciples heard about the request from James and John, they became indignant. The reason for their displeasure is not explicitly stated in the text. It could be that they also desired those positions of leadership, or they might have had moral or ethical objections to James and John's request. Regardless of the specific reason, their dissatisfaction with the situation is noted in the text.

Verse 42 -

Jesus initiates a discussion contrasting the leadership styles prevalent in Gentile societies with the type of leadership expected within His kingdom. He makes a reference to the Gentile rulers who "lord it over" their subjects, exercising their authority in a domineering manner. This leadership approach is based on power and control, where the leader's priorities and desires are paramount, often at the expense of the people under their rule.

Verse 43 -

Alternatively, Jesus presents a contrasting model for leadership within His kingdom. Instead of lording over others, those who aspire to be great must be the servant of all. This concept of servant leadership is antithetical to the hierarchical, domination-based leadership model of the Gentiles.

Jesus contrasts leadership by Gentile rulers, it is plausible that His teaching is not limited to kingdom leadership, but also Jewish leadership in general. That is, it could be that Jesus is not simply pointing out Gentile -vs- Kingdom leadership, but the ideal of Jewish leadership in general. This argument can be made considering the Jewish context and the Jewish values that include servant leadership.

There are many places in the Hebrew scriptures where servant leadership is honored and “lordship over” fellow Jews is condemned. For example, in Isaiah 10:1-2, the prophet criticizes the leaders who issue oppressive laws and deprive the poor, needy, and vulnerable of their rights. Jeremiah 23:1-2 carries a similar message where God condemns the shepherds who have scattered and destroyed His flock. Ezekiel 34:2-4 also follows this theme, with God's judgment against the shepherds of Israel who only take care of themselves, neglecting the welfare of their flocks.

These passages reflect a critique of leaders who abuse their power and neglect their duty to serve and protect those under their care. They underscore the Jewish value of servant leadership, where leaders are called to act justly, care for the needy, and lead with integrity and compassion. The contrast Jesus makes with Gentile leadership seems to be perfectly in harmony with what the Hebrew Scriptures had taught all along.

Furthermore, consider these passages in which the same value that Jesus is promoting had been previously promoted in the Hebrew scriptures:

1. Micah 6:8: "He hath shewed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?"
2. Proverbs 29:14: "The king that faithfully judgeth the poor, his throne shall be established for ever."
3. Psalm 72:12-14: "For he shall deliver the needy when he crieth; the poor also, and him that hath no helper. He shall spare the poor and needy, and shall save the souls of the needy. He shall redeem their soul from deceit and violence: and precious shall their blood be in his sight."
4. 1 Kings 12:7: "And they spake unto him, saying, If thou wilt be a servant unto this people this day, and wilt serve them, and answer them, and speak good words to them, then they will be thy servants for ever."
5. Isaiah 1:17: "Learn to do well; seek judgment, relieve the oppressed, judge the fatherless, plead for the widow."
6. Zechariah 7:9-10: "Thus speaketh the Lord of hosts, saying, Execute true judgment, and shew mercy and compassions every man to his brother: And oppress not the widow, nor the fatherless, the stranger, nor the poor; and let none of you imagine evil against his brother in your heart."

So, the “Kingdom Leadership” that Jesus taught turns out to be the the leadership that had been taught and valued among the “peculiar people” God put together in the nation of the Jews.

Verse 44 -

Jesus brings His teaching on leadership to a conclusion. He emphasizes that biblical leadership is not about dominance or authority, but about service to others.

While there is indeed a style of leadership that can be characterized as leaving "blood on the floor," a more common approach in Western civilization, which is deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values, has been one of servant leadership. This form of leadership, modeled on biblical principles, emphasizes service to others, humility, and a commitment to the welfare of the community over personal gain.

There have certainly been examples of arrogant, self-centered, monarchic, or oligarchic leadership, where the leaders are more concerned with their own interests than those of the people they govern. However, these instances can often be seen as exceptions rather than the rule.

The American governmental system, when operating according to its foundational principles, exemplifies this servant leadership style. The concept of "civil servants" embodies this ethos - those in government positions are there to serve the citizenry, to work for the common good and to put the needs of the people before their own. This is a stark contrast to a leadership style that prioritizes personal power or prestige.

I think it could be argued that the model of leadership that is most honored and often implemented in societies influenced by Judeo-Christian values is one of servant leadership. This model, which promotes service to others, humility, and concern for the common good, stands in stark contrast to models of leadership that emphasize personal power and dominance.