Mary and Martha
Luke10:38-42
Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me." And Jesus answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her."
Now it happened as they went that He entered a certain village; and a certain woman named Martha welcomed Him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who also sat at Jesus’ feet and heard His word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached Him and said, "Lord, do You not care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Therefore tell her to help me." And Jesus answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, and Mary has chosen that good part, which will not be taken away from her."
The issues here are attitude and priorities. Martha’s self pitying complaint ("Lord, do you not care...?") points out that her sister has left her alone to work. Martha was worried, troubled, and probably resentful. She allowed herself to get into a tizzy ("you are worried and troubled about many things") and then blamed her frazzled state on Mary’s lack of help. She could have meditated on the privilege she had, since the Savior had accepted her invitation, to serve Him in her home, but instead thought on the wrongs she thought she’d been done by Mary. She isn’t criticized for her work in the kitchen, or for wanting everything to be "just so"– I don’t think that was directed at Martha, but at the reader. She isn’t criticized for not sitting at Jesus’ feet, since someone did have to make dinner, after all! Perhaps Martha wanted to be sitting there instead–but someone does have to work in the kitchen, and her attitude about that was wrong. The problems here are her personal attitude and priorities–not that she was wielding the pots and pans.
The other issue is priorities. It was a once in history chance, to hear the incarnate Son of God teach during His time on earth prior to His death, burial, resurrection and ascension into Heaven. Mary knew that hearing Jesus teach was more important than keeping Martha company in the kitchen or helping serve dinner. To put the quote in the previous post into a fuller context, before quoting Luke 10:38-42 Pastor Wilson wrote ‘We are familiar with the story of Mary and Martha and how Martha lost her sense of priorities because she was "cumbered about much serving." ’
The main point of this section (titled "Priorities") isn’t the flaw of Martha but how to avoid misapplying this passage in daily life. Later in that section Pastor Wilson writes, "So if a mother is harried in the kitchen because a number of her children are out in the living room being selfish, this is not a Mary and Martha situation at all. It’s one where she will have to guard her attitude closely, but the children should not assume (when they are required to pitch in) that this is a case of misplaced priorities. Well actually, it is a case of misplaced priorities– theirs."
The main point of this section (titled "Priorities") isn’t the flaw of Martha but how to avoid misapplying this passage in daily life. Later in that section Pastor Wilson writes, "So if a mother is harried in the kitchen because a number of her children are out in the living room being selfish, this is not a Mary and Martha situation at all. It’s one where she will have to guard her attitude closely, but the children should not assume (when they are required to pitch in) that this is a case of misplaced priorities. Well actually, it is a case of misplaced priorities– theirs."
Although comments I have read elsewhere indicate that others have trouble understanding this passage, I will say that Jesus’ word on what happened here is the final one, since God is the only one who can see the heart and know everything about that or any situation. Mary chose the good part, and I believe that Martha’s attitude was wrong and that it was that which drew the gentle rebuke from the Savior.
9 comments:
Look, I didn't mean to upset you. Although I teach university courses in the history of Christianity, I am a Jew and so I probably have a very different perspective on this Gospel than you do. If Jesus wanted to be kind he could have said, "Hey, Martha, sit down for awhile," or "let me send one of my disciples to help you out," but instead he said, "stop sniping at Mary." Not very helpful, in my opinion. If I were Martha in this situation--presumably already with feelings of desperation--I would have felt even worse. I suppose you could argue that that was what Jesus wanted, but I still identify with Martha, who just wanted to do the right thing. One might speculate theologically as well that the traditional Catholic reading of this locus (Mary meant to exemplify the contemplative life, Martha to symbolize the active life), which prioritized the contemplative over the active life, has been the source of a lot of grief over the years for those who did not feel called to the contemplative life or were forced away from it.
Anyway, all that is neither here nor there. I ran across your blog several months ago and have been reading addictively since. You're a very discerning young woman, and your writing and reflections are fascinating to read. I wish my students were half as insightful.
I can’t imagine why you thought I was upset. I enjoyed studying and writing about Mary and Martha– an account which I think is especially important for me to understand as a Christian woman. I also appreciate your taking the time to comment.
We do see this differently. Looking at this or any passage, I think “Even if I don’t understand this, I still know that Jesus is the Son of God who came to take away the sins of the world and who is perfect and sinless in every way– therefore, if my heart or mind rebel at the words here, then the problem is not in Christ’s actions or words, but in my own sinful heart and flawed understanding.”
Why assume Martha wasn’t at fault at all? As I see it, there are two ways to read this passage. Either Martha really was overdoing it, trying to be showy and Super Hostess when it wasn’t possible and she should have relaxed and not worried about mismatched napkins...or...she could have genuinely had a ton of work, since Jesus wasn’t alone, and so her fault was that instead of bestowing her labor as a gift of love, she was working while harboring a grudge against Mary, whose need for that teaching may have been greater than Martha’s at that time. Either way, Martha was at fault, and Jesus gently told her so.
He let her know that He understood she was worried and troubled, and that her worrying and troubling herself were wrong. If He had been angrily rebuking her, I can think of many ways He could have done so. His tone here is gentle. “Martha, Martha...” He is concerned about her. He wasn’t worrying about whether dinner was ‘just so’, or even, if that wasn’t her problem, dinner happening at all. Had He really been uncaring and unkind, He could have said, “Woman, get back in the kitchen and stop bothering me. And bring more wine and raisin cakes on the double.”
Another thing to consider is that He knew and loved this family– look at John 11:5– “Now Jesus loved Martha, and her sister, and Lazarus.” and the whole section there dealing with Lazarus’ death.
You criticize Jesus for doing what you consider “unkind”. Possibly what you mean is that you don’t think He was “nice.” Niceness is not, however, the same thing as kindness. Niceness pulls back from helping people when it would cause them any discomfort or pain– kindness may have to wound people to help them. (Think of Proverbs 27:6– “Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.”)
May you come to see Jesus as He truly is.
No, I mean kindness in the sense of practicing "chesed." Jews are commanded to be kind, to practice chesed in their daily relationships. I don't think there's any question that Martha WASN'T practicing chesed here, but that's immaterial to the obligation of others, including Jesus, to treat her with chesed. I just don't think this was a very charitable reaction.
You're welcome, Gracie! Enjoy your rereading. :-)
Kindness allows reproof-- cf. Proverbs 3:12, “For whom the LORD loves He corrects, Just as a father the son in whom he delights.”
“Behold, happy is the man whom God corrects; Therefore do not despise the chastening of the Almighty.” (Job 5:17)
The reason people take offense at Jesus' words is typically typified by "Who does this man think he is?"
Ultimately, our disagreement boils down to whether or not Jesus is God.
Thank you again for taking the time to discuss this.
difference boils down to whether Jesus is G-d: I suppose that's true assuming that G-d is taken to be necessarily infallible and thus anything Jesus does is automatically correct. I'm not unaware of these issues since I spend a lot of time explaining the nuances of Christian theology to Christians who never thought much about them. (Someone in my Reformation history lecture told me last week that Mary's virginity was theologically irrelevant to Christianity. I almost fainted). I think that why I am provoked about this goes beyond the problem of whether everything Jesus does is justified on some level because he is God (after all there are plenty of things that Jesus does that are objectionable on some level that don't really bother me; and we should also keep in mind that I follow commandments that really have no discernible rational justification, like not mixing fibers in my clothing) to the historical and cultural uses of this story. I don't insist that everything Jesus does be explicable or justifiable for me to find the account of the Gospels significant or evening convincing. But the historical aspects are (naturally) a big deal to me, so part of me says, "well why didn't Jesus think a little (since he was God and all) about all of the ways this idea would be abused in the next 2 centuries?" Obviously, every great man has both good disciples and disciples who are idiots, and the human will in the Xian worldview is a broken vessel, but nonetheless, I'd like to have shown a little more forethought here.
I'm not really trying to convince you of anything, by the way; I just like to have a slightly more sophisticated theological conversation than I seem to be getting from my students this semester and your blog suggests that you think deeply about these things.
Popover, the mixing of fibers was forbidden because the mixing of God's covenant people was forbidden. Same meaning as the distinction between clean and unclean animals. God's covenant used to be, if not quite exclusively, at least very significantly, connected to the Jewish people. Christ opened this covenant to all at his resurrection, something that he telegraphed rather clearly in the story of the Gentile woman in Matthew 15. The distinction among men is now reckoned by Baptism and obedience to the gospel, not circumcision and ethnicity. I realize this is a quick and shallow explanation, but it is not the main reason I have interrupted your conversation.
I find it ironic that you have done the very thing to Natalie that you accuse Jesus of doing to Martha.
Your credentials, coupled with your willingness to come onto the website of a Christian and offer critiques of Jesus actions, betray an agenda. Obviously, you believe certain things to be true and you *do* wish to *convince* else you would not write persuasively, as you do. I am not troubled by this, since Natalie is up to the task of answering the nonsense that you are writing, but I will be here as a referee, and I will blow the whistle on claims of neutrality that plead no agenda. I will do this because I can tell Natalie is treating you very gently, even though you have deliberately entered her *house* with a bag of offense. Let's call your view what it is: hatred of Jesus and the God who is His Father.
Lets also call your condition what it is - blindness - and pray the Christ (Messiah) Jesus to open your encrusted eyes.
Wow, isn't this amazing? You know nothing about me other than the fact that I disagree with the author of the blog about Jesus' behavior in Luke. Also I appreciate a Calvinist telling me why G-d made commandments regarding shatnes. Do you think I don't know what Xians think about this? Metaphor/typology--a hermeneutic technique--hardly qualifies as a rational justification.
Actually, I read this site for the first time because I was googling something about Wodehouse and naddy.blogspot.com showed up. While looking through the posts to find what I was searching for, I discovered an intelligent, sensitive thinker who was confronting the world around her through her theological and religious knowledge--which was the reason I continued reading--something I have been doing since last Spring. Through this site I discovered an entire world of people thinking about the implications of the Reformed reading of the Gospels, which actually cheered me, although I feared talking to any of these people for the precise reason of posts like the one of james above. I certainly never disrespected the viewpoint of the author of the blog. Disagreement does not equal disrespect. And like most Jews, I hardly hate "Jesus." Theologically Jesus is irrelevant to me personally, which I guess you could understand as hate--although I spend so much time on Reformation Christology that it's hard for me to see how I could "hate" Jesus. Fascination would be a more accurate description.
I only posted on the blog for the first time over the issue of how or whether to make a souffle! I should have realized that other conversation was not welcome. I'm sorry if you feel I entered your or anyone's house. I certainly didn't feel I was doing that, or that the blog would be here to comment on if discusson were not warranted. And I'm sorry that you find the practice and beliefs of Judaism offensive. I certainly don't find Reformed Christianity offensive, so I find your statement remarkable.
Insofar as everyone has an agenda, I have one too: I like knowledgeable and committed conversation about the basis of the Judeo-Christian heritage, for me the most fundamental factor in the development of the west. I have, in fact, devoted my life to this study, and have been part of an important movement to bring the study of Christianity back into the public university (which until recently was ironically much happier to teach the history of Buddhism than the history of the central religion in the history of the West). Every day I lecture about the history of Christianity in a setting with Lutherans, Baptists, evangelicals, Catholics, and I don't know what all on a descriptive and evaluative level. In my classes, I try to communicate to students expressly that it is important to have a developed theological viewpoint and to understand the reasons for it and the criticisms typically made of it. I *encourage* students to represent Xty (if that is their religion) enthusiastically and effectively. I present historical research about the development of Christianity and competing viewpoints both scholarly and pious on this information so that students can learn to evaluate their heritage. In other words, I spend my professional life suggesting to people that it is possible to have tolerant discussions about Xty while learning from others and still leaving with one's convictions intact.
I thought I could learn from this blog in this way, but that is apparently not possible. All along, I was afraid that just this would happen. Since you feel that my comments are offensive and don't belong in this "house" I will not only not comment; I won't read the blog in future.
Sei gezunt.
Well, I'm sorry you don't like being held to the implications of your words. But for someone who knows as much as you profess to about what Christians think, I'm amazed that you think you may be able to lure us into a critique of his behaviour. Perhaps this works with some of your students, but we understand that we cannot worship a God we are competent to critique. Nor will we recognize anyone's assumed competence to stand in such a position. You have not understood the historic Christian position at all. The gospel is the announcement of a new King over all the earth, His name is Jesus and all are called to bow before Him and worship. This is not an intellectual exercise, or one religious option among many, but the very ground of reality for all men everywhere.
One day God will bring all the Jews to see this, just as He did me, the son of a woman who, as a young girl, spent WWII being hidden from the Nazis.
Popover,
It is true that I have comments enabled on my blog to encourage interaction. And it has been interesting.
I am interested in why you encourage students to have a developed theological viewpoint regardless of what religion they are. Of what benefit is a developed theological viewpoint if the foundation is wrong?
It is possible to discuss Christianity. However, I think you should be aware that any statement saying that Jesus either made a mistake or sinned is the equivalent of saying God the Father made a mistake or sinned, which is blasphemy. I did find your repeated statements to that effect disrespectful, but the insult to me was insignificant compared to the insult to Christ.
I am disappointed that you can't take the criticism offered above, accept that your previous statement that you weren't really attempting to convince was misleading, ponder the rest, and continue reading.
May you come to see Jesus, Messiah, as He is.
~Natalie
Post a Comment