Chizuk Emunah (Pt 2) Under the Microscope: Chapter 20

Troki argued:

Matthew 20:23, Jesus, addressing his disciples, namely the two children of Zebedee, says, "To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to give, but it shall be given to them, for whom it is prepared of my Father." The reader will find the same idea expressed in Mark 10. Now if the Son is less powerful than the Father, how can it be asserted that the Father and Son are all one? 

Williams replied:

This, however, is only one more instance of the way in which our Rabbi has misunderstood the Christian doctrine of the Incarnation. For it is plain to any thoughtful Christian that He answered in the character in which He was addressed. The two disciples, and their mother, did not make their request to Jesus as God, but as Messiah, the leader of Israel, and Jesus answered in the same capacity. You address Me as man, He might have replied, and as man I am unable to do this for you. It rests with My Father in heaven, and with Him alone. In other words, the question of the Divinity of Jesus is not raised. We should add that an attempt has been made by well-meaning Christian expositors to translate our Lord's words: "To sit on My right hand . . . is not Mine to give except to them for whom," etc. But it is barely possible to translate the Greek in this way. 

 We can better understand this passage if given the whole pericope:

Then the mother of the sons of Zebedee came up to him with her sons, and kneeling before him she asked him for something. And he said to her, “What do you want?” She said to him, “Say that these two sons of mine are to sit, one at your right hand and one at your left, in your kingdom.” Jesus answered, “You do not know what you are asking. Are you able to drink the cup that I am to drink?” They said to him, “We are able.” He said to them, “You will drink my cup, but to sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father.” (Matthew 20:20-23)

Troki is making the classic mistake of overinterpretation. The status of Jesus as God is nowhere in the context of the passage. Jesus received a mother's request that her two sons receive special preferential treatment as disciples. They were willing to drink from the cup of martyrdom, but God had already ordained who would sit at the right and left of Jesus in the kingdom. Jesus was not about to alter this plan for the sake of a mother's request. So how do you tell a mother "no" in the most polite way possible? You claim that the issue is out of your hands. In a sense, it was out of the hands of Jesus, since it was already set in place, and hence, no longer his to give.