Mark 10:36
And he said unto them, What would ye that I should do for you?
Original Language Analysis
Historical Context
This conversation occurs on the road to Jerusalem (10:32), immediately after Jesus' third passion prediction (10:33-34). Jesus has just detailed His coming suffering—betrayal, mockery, flogging, death, and resurrection. James and John's request for positions of glory demonstrates their selective hearing—they heard 'resurrection' and 'glory' but ignored 'suffering' and 'death.' Their request reflects persistent first-century Jewish expectations that Messiah would establish an earthly political kingdom, overthrowing Rome and restoring Israel's national sovereignty.
Questions for Reflection
- How does Jesus' question technique—inviting them to articulate their request—demonstrate wisdom in addressing selfish ambition?
- What does the parallel between Jesus' question to James and John versus Bartimaeus reveal about the difference between presumptuous demands and humble requests?
- When have you approached Jesus with 'What can you do for me?' rather than 'What would you have me do in your kingdom?'
Related Resources
Explore related topics, people, and study resources to deepen your understanding of this passage.
Analysis & Commentary
What would ye that I should do for you? (τί θέλετε ποιήσω ὑμῖν, ti thelete poiēsō hymin). Jesus' question appears gracious—He invites James and John to state their request openly. Yet the question also tests and exposes their hearts, giving them opportunity to recognize the selfishness of their ambition before voicing it.
This question mirrors exactly what Jesus asks blind Bartimaeus in verse 51: "What wilt thou that I should do unto thee?" The parallel is devastating—Bartimaeus humbly requests healing from his affliction, while James and John arrogantly request positions of honor. One man recognizes his spiritual poverty and need; two disciples presume upon Jesus' power for selfish advancement. The identical question exposes radically different heart conditions—humble dependence versus presumptuous entitlement.