After leaving the Temple and Jerusalem, Jesus and his disciples returned to Galilee, but Jesus did so privately, not wanting it to be known, because once more he taught his disciples that he would be betrayed and delivered, into the hands of his enemies. They would kill him, but he would rise on the third day (Mark 9:30-31; Matthew 17:22-23; Luke 9:44). Nevertheless, his disciples still didn’t understand, no doubt because they still retained the teaching of the Pharisees that the Messiah couldn’t die (cp. Mark 8:31-33; John 12:34). Therefore, by believing the doctrine of the Pharisees, Jesus’ disciples had no context in which to put Jesus’ teaching of the crucifixion. Therefore, without a context for a dying Messiah, they couldn’t understand Jesus’ teaching about his ultimate death and resurrection (Mark 9:32; Luke 9:45), and they were afraid to ask, no doubt because of how Jesus replied to Peter the first time Jesus mentioned the matter (Mark 8:33).
After he returned to Capernaum with his disciples, Jesus asked them what they were disputing about along the way from Judea to Galilee (Mark 9:30, 33). It seems that the disciples carefully hid their conversation from the Lord, or so they thought, as they journeyed northward. Now, they kept silent and didn’t wish to answer the Lord’s direct question (Mark 9:34). Therefore, they must have known their dispute over who was or would be greatest in the Kingdom wouldn’t have met with Jesus’ approval. So, why did they do it? What prompted the dispute in the first place?
Probably, there is nothing like failure to get one to want to at least appear better to others than he seems to be in his own eyes. Mark is the only one of the Synoptics that mentions the scribes were speaking with Jesus’ disciples, when he approached them, after coming down the mount at Jerusalem (Mark 9:14). The scribes were Jesus’ enemies, always disputing with him and seeking to find fault. There is absolutely no reason to believe they weren’t doing the same with Jesus’ disciples. Moreover, the disciples would have been much easier targets for their accusations and fault finding, leaving each of the Twelve with poor self-esteem. Therefore, they may very well have been finding fault with one another, in an effort not to appear to be such failures in their own eyes. Nursing one’s wounds at the expense of another is a common approach for folks who have committed an embarrassing blunder. So, who is the greatest? Perhaps, it’s the one who successfully keeps the blame off of himself through successful finger-pointing. The bar is always low among folks whose only claim to greatness is “I am not to blame for the failure.”
It would seem that Jesus already knew his disciples were disputing over who would be greatest in the Kingdom (cp. Luke 9:47), because he made this the subject of his next teaching session, as he sat down in the house (Mark 9:34-35). Jesus brought a little child into the group (Mark 9:36). Perhaps one of them was its father, and he told his disciples, if anyone of them wanted to be first or the greatest, he had to strive to be last or the servant of all (Mark 9:37). Why would Jesus have chosen a child to make his point? First of all, a child has no authority at all, even the servant has more authority than the child, although the child would be heir of all (Galatians 4:1-2). In fact, Dr. Bob Utley[1] claims:
Jesus spoke Aramaic. This saying (i.e., Mark 9:35-37) may be a word play on the Aramaic word talya, which means both “child” and “servant.”
I am unable to verify Dr. Utley’s statement, but the Hebrew word na’ar (H5288) is used for both child and servant in the Old Covenant text, and it is said in Proverbs:
Even a child (H5288) is known by his doings, whether his work be pure, and whether it be right. (Proverbs 20:11)
“Even a child…” or perhaps “Even a servant…” is known by what he does, whether his conduct is clean and upright. So, it would have been perfectly logical for Jesus to bring a child into the group in order to make his point. Immediately, the group would understand the child had no authority, and the fact that a child is on the level of a servant (often referred to with the same Hebrew / Aramaic word), they should have understood Jesus’ point that not one of them had any authority over any of the others. No doubt, this was explained to them before this, though it is not recorded before this incident. Otherwise, why would they have sought to hide their doings from the Lord (Mark 9:33-34)?
Jesus concluded this teaching session by pointing out that each one of them is his child or servant[2] (Mark 9:37; cp. Matthew 9:15; i.e., disciples), and to receive one another is to receive him, and not only would one receive Christ, but one would also receive the Father who sent Christ.
______________________________________________________
[1] See Dr. Bob Utley’s You Can Understand the Bible Commentary at Mark 9:35.
[2] See also Matthew 12:27 where Jesus was speaking to the Pharisees (cp. Matthew 12:24). There he says the Pharisees’ children would be their judges. That is, the Pharisees students or disciples would be their judges, because the very thing they accused Jesus of doing was a common practice among themselves. They did seek to use the authority of evil to cast out evil. See an earlier study of mine from the Gospel of Luke: Jesus Spoke with Authority.
Smoodock's Blog 