Two brothers pulled Jesus aside. They had a request, and they wanted to get to Him before the others did. James and John—sons of Zebedee, part of the inner circle, men who had seen the Transfiguration and heard things the rest of the Twelve had not—came with a bold opener: “Teacher, we want You to do for us whatever we ask of You” (New American Standard Bible, 2020, Mark 10:35).
Think about that. They did not ask for wisdom. They did not ask for greater faith. They asked for a blank check. And what they wanted to write on it was a seating arrangement—one at His right, one at His left, in His glory. They wanted position. They wanted proximity. They wanted the visible, public, unmistakable honor of being seated next to the King when He took the throne.
The other ten heard about it and were furious. Not because they rejected the idea of rank, but because James and John got there first. The anger of the ten revealed the same ambition that the two had spoken aloud.
And that is when Jesus redefined leadership for everyone who would ever follow Him.
The World They Knew
To understand what Jesus said, we need to understand the world James and John came from—and the world many of us still lead in.
The disciples grew up in a culture built on visible hierarchy. Who sat where mattered. Who stood closest to the powerful person mattered. The right to be named, recognized, and publicly honored was not vanity—it was social currency. The person at the right hand of the ruler held the highest position of delegated authority. The person at the left held the second. Everyone else understood their rank by where they stood in relation to those two.
This was not unique to first-century Judea. Leadership scholars have shown that cultures with high power-distance—cultures where authority concentrates at the top and followers defer to position—produce leadership patterns built on centralized control, unilateral decision-making, and strong status distance (Chen et al., 2024; Wang & Guan, 2018). Research in the Arab world has confirmed the same dynamic. Studies across the region have shown that leadership legitimacy often emerges through a complex interaction of seniority, kinship networks, public respectability, and relational access to recognized leaders (Alqhaiwi et al., 2023; Hamlin et al., 2024). In such environments, title and proximity carry enormous weight.
None of that is automatically sinful. Hierarchy is not the enemy. Structure is not the problem. The problem begins when the title becomes the credential, when proximity to the leader replaces demonstrated service, and when the leader’s position insulates them from accountability rather than increasing their responsibility.
That is exactly what James and John were asking for. And that is exactly what Jesus rejected.
What Glory Really Means
The timing of the brothers’ request matters more than most readers notice. Immediately before this conversation, Jesus had just given His most detailed prediction of what awaited Him in Jerusalem:
“Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem, and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and the scribes; and they will condemn Him to death and will hand Him over to the Gentiles. They will mock Him and spit on Him, and scourge Him and kill Him, and three days later He will rise again.” Mark 10:33–34 (NASB)
Jesus spoke of condemnation, mockery, scourging, and death. James and John heard all of it—and responded by asking for thrones. They heard suffering and imagined glory. They heard the cross and pictured a coronation.
This is not ancient history. This is the persistent temptation of leadership in the church. A leader can sit under the teaching of Jesus, hear the call to lay down his life, and walk away thinking about his title, his platform, and his proximity to the next level of influence. The brothers’ mistake was not that they believed in glory. The mistake was that they defined glory as rank, visibility, and privileged position—when Jesus was defining it as suffering, service, and sacrificial death.
Jesus answered them directly: “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mark 10:38). The cup and the baptism were not metaphors for blessing. They were images of overwhelming suffering. Jesus was saying: you are asking for a throne, but the path to it runs through a cross.
They said they were able. Jesus did not argue. He told them they would indeed drink His cup and share His baptism—but the seats at His right and left were not His to give. Even in that moment, Jesus modeled the principle He was about to teach. Authority exercised under God does not distribute positions as personal favors. It operates within an order established by the Father.
The Anger That Revealed Everything
Mark records that when the other ten heard about the request, they became indignant with James and John (Mark 10:41). The word is strong. This was not mild disappointment. It was anger—real, heated, personal.
But the anger exposed them. If the ten had already understood what Jesus was teaching about servanthood, the brothers’ request would have drawn pity or correction—not outrage. They were angry because the two had sought an advantage the ten also wanted. The entire group shared the same imagination of leadership. They all thought greatness meant being above, being first, being closest to the center of power.
This dynamic is painfully familiar in ministry settings across the Arab world. When a young pastor receives recognition, the response from peers is rarely celebration. When someone gains access to a well-known leader, the circle tightens. When titles shift or roles expand, the conversation behind closed doors reveals the same competition Mark described two thousand years ago. The issue is not unique to any one culture—but in high power-distance environments where title, seniority, and relational access carry enormous social weight, the pattern runs deep.
Research confirms what the text reveals. Studies on authoritarian leadership have shown that in environments where followers defer to position, controlling and status-conscious leadership can actually appear effective in the short term (Wang & Guan, 2018). That is part of what makes it so difficult to challenge. The leader gets results. The organization moves. People comply. But the same research shows that this compliance comes at a cost—it fosters silence, suppresses candor, and weakens the conditions that allow people to speak honestly (Duan et al., 2018). In a church setting, that silence can masquerade as honor, and compliance can be mistaken for unity.
Jesus saw through all of it—both the brothers’ request and the ten’s anger—and called the entire group together.
“Not So Among You”
What Jesus said next is among the most important leadership statements in all of Scripture:
“You know that those who are recognized as rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them; and their great ones exercise authority over them. But it is not this way among you, but whoever wishes to become great among you shall be your servant; and whoever wishes to be first among you shall be slave of all.” Mark 10:42–44 (NASB)
Jesus named the system everyone already knew. The rulers of the nations operated through domination—lording over, exercising authority downward, using position as leverage. Their greatness was measured by how many people served them, how much control they held, and how far their command extended. That was the recognized model. It was not hidden or controversial. It was simply how the world worked.
And Jesus said: not so among you.
That phrase did more than correct two ambitious disciples. It drew a line between two entirely different worlds. On one side stood the social order of the nations—rank, domination, control, visibility, privilege. On the other stood the community Jesus was forming—a community where greatness ran downward, where the first became the slave of all, and where authority expressed itself through responsibility for others rather than power over them.
Notice what Jesus did not say. He did not abolish greatness. He did not eliminate the concept of being first. He did not dissolve authority or flatten all leadership into leaderless equality. The words great and first remained in His vocabulary. But He relocated them. Greatness was no longer a matter of who sat closest to the throne. It was a matter of who served most completely. Firstness was no longer measured by title, seniority, or public recognition. It was measured by willingness to take the lowest place.
This is a critical distinction for leaders in the Arab world, where the cultural pressure to honor hierarchy is real and deeply rooted. Arab culture carries genuine moral resources—concepts like consultation, trustworthiness, and disciplined mastery are embedded in the social fabric and reflect values that align with biblical leadership (Alqhaiwi et al., 2023). The problem is not hierarchy itself. The problem is what happens when hierarchy becomes an end rather than a means—when title protects the leader rather than positioning them for service, when seniority grants privilege rather than increasing responsibility, and when proximity to the recognized leader becomes the measure of a person’s worth.
Many leaders in the Arab church have absorbed these patterns without recognizing them. The vocabulary may not be familiar—terms like power-distance or patronage logic are not phrases most pastors use. But the behaviors are common. The young leader who cannot speak honestly to the senior pastor because of the gap in title. The ministry team where decisions flow from one person and no one asks questions. The church where closeness to the leader determines who gets opportunity. These are not organizational quirks. They are the exact patterns Jesus confronted in Mark 10.
Research on leadership in the region has identified these dynamics clearly. Studies have documented how centralization, strict top-down authority, and reputational pressures shape leadership cultures across the Arab world (Alsuood & Youde, 2018), and how indirectness and social expectation influence the way authority communicates (Nickerson & Goby, 2017). These findings do not justify a blanket critique of Arab culture. They do, however, confirm that the cultural conditions for title-centered leadership exist—and that leaders who do not recognize these pressures will reproduce them, even in the church.
The Son of Man Came to Serve
Jesus did not stop at a principle. He gave Himself as the example:
“For even the Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give His life a ransom for many.” Mark 10:45 (NASB)
This verse is the foundation under everything Jesus said about greatness. The Son of Man—the one with the highest authority, the greatest name, the most legitimate claim to the seat of honor—did not come to receive service. He came to render it. And the ultimate expression of His service was not a program, a title, or an organizational achievement. It was the giving of His life.
The logic of the nations says: the many exist for the sake of the one in power. The ruler accumulates service, tribute, and recognition from those below. Jesus reversed that logic completely. He—the One—existed for the sake of the many. His authority moved downward. His power expressed itself in sacrifice. His glory was the cross.
Scholarship on this passage has recognized the force of this reversal. Thiessen (2016) argued that Mark 10:45 directly subverted the imperial logic in which the many existed to serve the one ruler. In other words, what modern leadership research is only beginning to articulate—that domination-oriented leadership damages people and organizations—Jesus stated plainly two thousand years ago. The Word of God was ahead of the research. It always is.
For the leader in the Arab world, this means something very specific. You may hold a title. You may lead a church, direct a training center, oversee a network of ministries. None of that is the problem. The question is whether your title serves the people or whether the people serve your title. The question is whether your authority increases your responsibility for others or insulates you from it. The question is whether you measure your ministry by how many people honor you or by how many people you have formed, equipped, and released to do the work of God.
What Title-Centered Leadership Looks Like in the Church
It may help to name the pattern plainly, because many leaders do not recognize it in themselves.
Title-centered leadership in ministry is leadership in which formal position, public honor, seniority, or relational access to recognized leaders functions as the primary basis of authority—rather than demonstrated service, moral credibility, and responsibility for the people of God. It is not simply having a title. Every pastor has a title. It is the point at which the title replaces the substance it was meant to represent.
In practical terms, title-centered leadership looks like the pastor who makes every decision alone and interprets pushback as dishonor. It looks like the leader whose inner circle is built on loyalty to him rather than gifting for the mission. It looks like the ministry where younger leaders are expected to serve the vision of the senior leader indefinitely but are never entrusted with real authority. It looks like the church where questioning the leader is treated as questioning God.
The cultural reinforcement is strong. In high power-distance settings, followers often expect leaders to lead from above and to be protected from challenge. Research has shown that paternalistic leadership—leadership that combines care with strong authority—takes different forms in different cultures (Aycan et al., 2013). In some cases, the leader genuinely cares for the people and exercises authority with a sense of moral weight. That kind of protective authority has a legitimate place. But when the care becomes conditional on compliance, when the authority is exercised without accountability, and when the leader’s position becomes untouchable—that is not paternalism. That is domination dressed in pastoral clothing.
Jesus said: not so among you.
What Jesus-Shaped Leadership Looks Like
If Mark 10:35–45 tears down one model of leadership, it also builds another in its place. The leadership Jesus described was not the absence of authority. It was authority expressed through service, sacrifice, and responsibility for others.
The leader who follows Jesus’ pattern does not eliminate structure. He uses structure to serve. He does not abolish titles. He fills the title with substance—and the substance is always measured by what the people under his care receive, not by what he accumulates for himself.
This kind of leader makes decisions, and sometimes those decisions are hard. But the decisions serve the mission and the people—not the leader’s reputation. This kind of leader receives honor, because Scripture teaches that leaders who lead well are worthy of double honor (New American Standard Bible, 2020, 1 Timothy 5:17). But the honor is a response to faithful service, not a prerequisite for it. This kind of leader develops other leaders—not assistants to his own vision, but mature men and women who are entrusted with real responsibility and released to bear real fruit.
In the Arab church, this kind of leadership requires courage. It means choosing vulnerability over control. It means welcoming honest feedback instead of punishing it. It means measuring success not by the size of the platform but by the maturity and fruitfulness of the people you serve. It means resisting the cultural expectation that the leader sits above and everyone else serves upward—and instead building a community where authority flows downward in service.
That is what Jesus built. That is what He modeled. And that is what He commanded.
A Word to Leaders
Mark 10:35–45 is not a soft text. It does not suggest that leaders consider being a little more humble. It overturns an entire social imagination of what leadership means.
James and John wanted glory defined as position. Jesus defined glory as suffering and service. The ten were angry because they wanted the same thing the two had asked for. Jesus called them all together and said the rulers of the nations lead one way—but it is not this way among you.
If you lead in the Arab world—if you pastor a church, direct a ministry, train emerging leaders—this passage speaks directly to you. The cultural pressures are real. Title carries weight. Seniority commands deference. Proximity to the recognized leader opens doors. None of these realities will change overnight, and not all of them are inherently wrong.
But Jesus drew a line. On one side of that line, leadership is validated by position, protected by status, and measured by how many people serve the leader. On the other side, leadership is validated by service, tested by sacrifice, and measured by how many people the leader has served, formed, and released.
The Son of Man did not come to be served. He came to serve and to give His life. That is the standard. Not cultural expectation. Not organizational efficiency. Not the traditions of seniority or the habits of hierarchy. The standard is Jesus—and the pattern He set is the only legitimate model of greatness in His Kingdom.
The question for every leader is simple and searching: does your leadership look more like the rulers of the nations, or more like the Son of Man?
Choose.
AUTHOR NOTE
Inquires for the author can be sent to Go Middle East, PO BOX 3431 Broken Arrow, Ok 74013; admin@go-me.org; ORCID 0009-0007-9063-0098.
References
Alqhaiwi, Z. O., Bednall, T., & Kyndt, E. (2023). Excellence in leadership in the Arab world: Islamic principles and tribal values. Evidence from Jordan. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 23(3), 613–634. https://doi.org/10.1177/14705958231212742
Alsuood, Y. A., & Youde, A. (2018). An exploration of cultural factors and their influence on Saudi Arabian university deans’ leadership perceptions and practices. Education Sciences, 8(2), Article 57. https://doi.org/10.3390/educsci8020057
Aycan, Z., Schyns, B., Sun, J.-M., Felfe, J., & Saher, N. (2013). Convergence and divergence of paternalistic leadership: A cross-cultural investigation of prototypes. Journal of International Business Studies, 44(9), 962–969. https://doi.org/10.1057/jibs.2013.48
Chen, L., Huang, X., Sun, J.-M., Zheng, Y., & Graham, L. (2024). The virtue of a controlling leadership style: Authoritarian leadership, work stressors, and leader power distance orientation. Asia Pacific Journal of Management, 41, 507–547. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10490-022-09860-7
Duan, J., Bao, C., Huang, C., & Brinsfield, C. T. (2018). Authoritarian leadership and employee silence in China. Journal of Management & Organization, 24(1), 62–80. https://doi.org/10.1017/jmo.2016.61
Hamlin, R. G., Alhejji, H., & Patel, T. (2024). Perceived managerial and leadership effectiveness within multinational corporations in Saudi Arabia: The role of Islamic and Wasta values. Human Resource Development Quarterly, 35(3), 327–361. https://doi.org/10.1002/hrdq.21516
New American Standard Bible. (1995/2020). The Lockman Foundation. https://www.biblegateway.com/
Nickerson, C., & Goby, V. P. (2017). New lamps for old: The Gulf leadership communication framework. International Journal of Business Communication, 54(2), 182–198. https://doi.org/10.1177/2329488416687055
Thiessen, M. (2016). The many for one or one for the many? Reading Mark 10:45 in the Roman Empire. Harvard Theological Review, 109(3), 447–466. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0017816016000171
Wang, H., & Guan, B. (2018). The positive effect of authoritarian leadership on employee performance: The moderating role of power distance. Frontiers in Psychology, 9, Article 357. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00357