"But they held their peace, for in the way they had disputed among themselves, which of them should be the greatest. And sitting down, he called the twelve and saith to them: if any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all and the minister of all."
--Mark 9:34-35

Quite a few ways to interpret this. Anti-capitalist, pro-equality, against organized religion, or simply against all forms of social hierarchy... What's your interpretation?

Brian: none of the above.

How about this: many people want to be on top -- say, like many of the people spending years of their lives and millions of dollars to become president. They tend in fact to be the worst people and belong at the bottom. (No rejection of hierachy here -- there IS a bottom.) But to truly be the best, one needs to serve others, put oneself below them. (No demand for equality here.) (And anti-capitalism, I'm sorry, that's just out of left field.)

Athena, font of wisdom, you left out the suggestion that the passage is against organized religion. It would be passing strange that a fellow who went about and hand-picked "disciples" to drop their things and follow Him and who remained an obedient member of the Jewish religion recognized as a great teacher of that faith, even by those opposed to him, would here be criticizing organized religion.

Is hand picking disciples disorganized? Or being a rabbi of an ancient faith?

I think the passage is really rather straightforward and you have interpreted it just fine Athena. No need to try and draw out esoteric subtleties.

I don't see any anti-capitalism. It's a fairly simple message: Those who seek to put themselves above others will come to an unhappy end.

Athena:

It says "if any man desire to be first, he shall be the last of all". You wrote "[people who want to be on top] tend in fact to be the worst people and belong at the bottom." That's basically my interpretation. His people were debating who belongs at the top, and it sounds to me like he was lecturing them that nobody should be on top. In that context, I don't see how mentioning a bottom can be seen as an endorsement of hierarchy; it has to be somewhere between saying nothing on the subject and rejecting hierarchy entirely.

Whether it's anti-capitalist or against organized religion just depends on how broadly it's meant to be applied. At the narrowest, it applies to the group he was talking to. Taken more broadly it's a general rule for organized religion or, more broadly, it's meant for the whole of society. At the broadest, it can mean that you should not try to become the wealthiest person. I did not say that this is the correct interpretation, just that it is one of them.

The people in power lord it over their subjects and generally act like dicks. Don't be a dick -- help a brother out.

I generally don't post quotes to tie into any current events, but reading this passage in the midst of the presidential campaign got me to think about why people want to be leaders. Do they want to serve or be served? I thought this quote a good rebuttal to ambition.

". At the broadest, it can mean that you should not try to become the wealthiest person. I did not say that this is the correct interpretation, just that it is one of them." - Brian Rogers

To be wealthy in a true free market is very different from political rulership (what is being discussed here).

The wealthiest in a laissez faire market is the wealthiest because he is the most productive member of the society. I.E because he is serving his fellow men the most. Exactly what Jesus says to do, in fact.

Brian R.: I just don't think that your interpretation -- anti-capitalistic, anti-religion, anti-hierarchy -- has any textual resonance, either with this quotation or with the New Testament as a whole.

In fact, one could say that it is very capitalist: the person who gets the most money while following the rules has probably done so because more people valued his services to them.

Now, I do think that this is an anti-arrogance quotation. It is anti-presumption (as that parable about seating oneself in the position of honor shows). It says nothing about there being no positions of honor, or there not being better people than others, or there not being a social requirement for differences in responsibility or power. Note, for example, that Jesus never attacks the power of the preists or even of the Pharasees -- just their misuses of their power/knowledge.