There may not be a passage in the Bible that has garnered a wider variety of interpretations from commentators than Luke 10.38-42. It is a short passage that tells a vignette between two sisters, Martha and Mary, with different personality types, who have welcomed Jesus and his disciples into their home.
This passage has been construed by some interpreters as denoting which kind of service to Jesus is best, viz., meditation and reflection as opposed to the active hospitality of food preparation and lodging. Contemplatives have used this passage to claim that monastic life focused on one thing is to be preferred to the multi-dimensioned life of living in the world anxiously with jobs, families, etc.
It has been used by some to define a limited role of women in the church, viz., one of listening and not doing; or, in other accounts, to the role of hospitality that women are thought to have. Male-dominated churches like to use this passage to subvert women within the church, and deny them any real authority.
It has been construed by others as Jesus siding with the sister who paid him personal attention while the other essentially ignored him, even though she was preparing a meal for him. Those who focus on putting Jesus first in their lives over all other concerns like this interpretation which lends itself to their theology of accepting Jesus as our personal savior.
Yet another set of renderings tries to equalize the varying attempts at hospitality of the two sisters so that the Marthas of the world will not feel put out. These views often mention that Martha’s service to Jesus was just as legitimate as Mary’s, just different; and that some other issue (as numerous as there are interpreters) was actually at stake.
Quite honestly, I think they all miss the point. There are few passages in the Bible that are “stand alone” passages, I’ve come to believe. When we pick a passage out of the Bible and try to make sense out of it, we often do so with our own baggage attached; and so, it is not surprising that we get a variety of different interpretations. Understanding a passage independently of its context may lead to multivalent meanings, which I typically think is a good thing, but doing so undermines the author’s intent and too often proposes a variety of renderings that tell more about our own thinking than that of the author. This is fine if our purpose is solely for the sake of devotional activity or for motivation and inspiration, but not if we are to understand things from the perspective of the author and those the author is writing about. If we want to get a truer rendering of the meaning of the passage for the time in which it was written, it pays us dividends to look at the surrounding context in which the passage is laid.
Interpreting the story of Martha and Mary has gone awry because it has too often been considered as a passage independent of its context. This story concludes a chapter that has already given us plenty of clues as to its meaning.
Chapter 10 begins (vss. 1-9) with Jesus having his followers to spread his egalitarian message to the countryside, going two by two from town to town. It is often assumed, perhaps rightly, that only the men did this. But what if his women followers also went? Would it have not been a more stunning display of what people regarded as equals looked like? And even if women didn’t go out to the towns, does not this final story of Martha and Mary lend itself to them actually being disciples – contrary to the opposite conclusion that some patriarchal interpreters have espoused?
Luke 10.10-16 speaks of those who listen to Jesus/God and those who don’t. It speaks of woe to those who don’t listen, even though, we presume, they may be regarded as upstanding citizens in their communities. Can we not see Mary as one who listens (implying that it is more than mere hearing, but a willingness to change her life), and that Martha is one who is too distracted by her other tasks to really listen? Are these passages not intentionally linked? For Jesus, it is the unquestioning diligent workers (i.e., the Marthas) who made the Roman Empire possible. They are perpetually busy doing the things that make communities run smoothly, obeying what their society expects of them. But it is the listeners to God’s egalitarian ways who take in every word and are willing to transform their lifestyles and conduct (i.e., the Marys) who help to recreate the Community of God on earth. Mary sat at Jesus’ feet as a disciple would do – an indicator that she had already adopted Jesus’ egalitarian ways by casting aside her traditional role as a woman to be servants of hospitality to men. If we see Jesus’ apparently harsh response to Martha in the light of her being a loyal follower of the ways of human society and not God’s community, then do we not see the “bigger picture” of how Martha’s behavior was not just about her, but about all people who faithfully do the bidding of those define how human society should be organized and never come to realize the necessity of abandoning those ways for God’s ways?
In Luke 10.17-24, the seventy disciples and followers of Jesus return from the towns to proclaim that all Jesus had done, they, too, could do. Healings, teaching how to be equals, and removal of demons (i.e., the effects of the structures of empire such as poverty, ill-health, injustice, etc., that make people spiritually unwell) were all presumably made possible by these disciples without Jesus’ physical presence, but only his spirit living within them. Jesus rejoices at their accomplishments in the Holy Spirit which allowed them to see and do things even kings and prophets could not see and do. These things cannot be done when you are, like Martha, anxious and distracted by what society would have you do. They can only be done when you are, like Mary, focused on the “one thing,” which is the Spirit living within you that transforms our roles and practices.
The last verses before our story of Martha and Mary is that of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10.25—37). Does not Martha represent the lawyer who knew the right thing, but failed to do it? Martha serves Jesus with an invitation to give room and board to him and his disciples. She, like the lawyer who gives the right answer to Jesus’ question, is on the right track. But like the lawyer, when she tries to justify her own activities and refuses to live in egalitarian ways with her sister/neighbor, she doesn’t measure up to what Jesus is asking of her.
Martha, also like the priest and the Levite, was too busy with living up to her role that society has given to her to actually do what God calls her to do. She showed little compassion for her sister, Mary, and indeed publicly attacked her and robbed her of her public esteem by saying she wasn’t doing her share of the chores; even as the man had been attacked on the road in the parable of the Good Samaritan.
Are not these parallels intentional? Should we not see them together as a unit, even as the author placed them to be?
Who can’t have empathy for Martha if we take the story independently of all of this prior context? She faithfully welcomes Jesus into her home, and tends to his physical needs. This is praise-worthy activity when seen in isolation. But when we see her actions in relationship to all else that has happened in this chapter, we see the story of Martha and Mary puts a final seal on the level of commitment required to be a follower of God. It is not enough to invite God/Christ into our lives if we aren’t willing to listen with our full attention, to change our habits, practices, and lifestyles, to refuse to conform to the ways of empire by recreating ourselves and our roles in accordance with the ways of God, and to start living as equals of one another.
If we contrast Martha and Mary according to these established values of Jesus, we see where Martha receives the seed, but doesn’t let it grow like her sister Mary. Martha is on board with Jesus providing she can keep on living the way she always has. Mary, however, is so on board with Jesus that she no longer conforms to what society says she should be doing, but doing what Jesus would have her to do: listen with your whole being, and then live with your whole being. Mary, by her very positioning at Jesus’ feet, took on the role of being a disciple – one who both listens, and then goes and does the same. The fact that she refused to be shamed into doing the traditional roles her society taught her to do, and to act as an equal to all of Jesus’ male disciples, reveals that her courageous and audacious act was commitment to Jesus’ values. That Jesus reprimands Martha and praises Mary brings home the point that Jesus sees that only Mary has been transformed and is growing in the faith of his egalitarian ways. Martha likes what Jesus says theoretically, but isn’t able to transform her own behavior like her sister.
Of course, we should listen ourselves to this lesson! Who among us isn’t on board with the values of peace, love, and justice which Jesus espoused? But who among us is willing to not conform to what our society thinks to actually live by peace, love, and justice? If we are for peace, must not we oppose war? If we are for love, must we not treat others as we ourselves want to be treated? If we are for justice, must it not be for all persons, not just the powerful and wealthy? Are we willing to change our lifestyles and practices to conform with God’s values instead of America’s values?
The story of Martha and Mary reveals two sisters with different responses to the Great Commandment that was just declared in Luke 10.27: “You shall love the virtuous one, your God, with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as your-self.”
Martha loved Jesus (and implicitly, God) with her heart; after all, she invited to care for him and his disciples. But she did not love him with all her soul, strength, and mind. Traditional roles gripped her soul, anxiety and worry sapped her strength, and trying to organize everything so it was just right occupied her mind. How could she listen to Jesus’ values, take them on herself, and apply them to her life when she was preoccupied with all of these other concerns?
And all of this also kept her from not being able to respect and love her sister as herself. She became frustrated that her sister wasn’t acting as she herself was; and perhaps like her sister had always acted previously. When her sister chose a different path, she couldn’t tolerate the change; even though it was a good one. She tried to shame her sister to get her to do what she wanted her to do; rather than affirming Mary for what she had decided she wanted to do by her own volition.
Mary, in contrast, loved God and Jesus with her whole being: heart, soul, strength, and mind. She was present to Jesus, giving him the personal attention of her heart and mind. She didn’t let gender roles keep her from doing what she thought was most right, which reveals she fought with all her strength the cultural norms that said she should be in the kitchen rather than at Jesus’ feet. And she, we assume, ignored the histrionics of her sister, and perhaps others, who were trying to shame her into being a lesser person than she felt Jesus was calling her to be; thus investing her whole soul in the enterprise of becoming his disciple.
The choices between the two women are stark in contrast. Martha, as we’re told twice in this short passage, was “distracted”; whereas Mary focused on the “one thing” that mattered most. When Martha had the opportunity to listen to Jesus’ words and take in his teachings, she became distracted by other things. She was distracted that she was left alone to do the cooking and lodging preparations by her-self. She was distracted that her sister refused to help her despite her likely signaling from other room to do so. She was distracted that Jesus didn’t tell her sister to do her ‘womanly duties’ rather than let her set at his feet like a woman with a school-girl crush. She was distracted that these two people she cared for weren’t doing things as she herself would do them. They were making choices she wouldn’t make. She was distracted that she couldn’t coerce, manipulate, or control their behavior despite her likely sighs, pacing, mumbling, and clanging in the kitchen. And, most interestingly, she was distracted from learning further truth while she was doing acts of kindness.
Does it not seem odd that we can be distracted from truth by focusing on kindness? And yet, that reveals the degree to which we need to have our priorities in order. We need kindness, no doubt. It is indispensable to life. But we also need to recognize the prior need to apply our kindness with truth. Have we not all witnessed when someone loves another with their heart, but does not really possess the wisdom of knowing what is best for them? Can people not do nice things for others in trying to help them out, but which do not actually do so? Martha would, no doubt, justify her actions as looking out for both Jesus and Mary; yet are we really looking out for people when we try to make them conform to our own ideas of what is right for them?
Mary, on the other hand, put aside all her prior commitments to be with Jesus and attend to his every word. She put her soul, strength, and mind to the task of listening to him – despite the judgment of her sister, and likely others in the group. She was willing to do the best thing rather than just a good thing. And she did not try to control her sister’s or anyone else’s behavior. She tended to her choices, not to anyone else’s choices. She loved others as she herself wanted to be loved; allowing them the opportunity to make their own decisions, rather than her making them for them. Mary didn’t try to coerce, manipulate, or control anyone. But she also didn’t let anyone do that to her.
Jesus saw Mary’s faithfulness, and commended her for her choices. Jesus saw Martha’s distracted, anxious, and controlling ways as antithetical to the loving and egalitarian community he sought to build.
Contrary to some viewpoints, Jesus did not reprimand Martha for inviting him to her home, feeding, sheltering, and making a place for him to sleep. That is not what this is about. It is about a basically good person, like the Priest and Scribe in the previous parable, not doing the right thing when they were preoccupied with their own lives. It is more aptly about how when basically good people don’t follow through in doing the right thing at the right time, then the Community of God/Heaven cannot get a foot-hold on earth. Basically good people need to do more than get on board with thoughts and prayers. They need to change their behaviors, and help create a more egalitarian world. Even when they do acts of compassion in service to others, if it is done for their own ends of trying to control others, then it is not only not helpful, but detrimental, to loving God with our whole heart, mind, soul, and strength, and loving our neighbors as we love ourselves.
Taking this story out of its context from the prior points in the chapter does an injustice to it. But when we see it in relationship to these other points, we see the richness, complexity, and depth of what is required of us to live by Jesus’ ways. It reveals that when we think we are doing a good and right thing, that it may not be the thing we should have most done. Living by Jesus’ ways demands that we live up to our best selves, not just what society would tell us is good enough. As I see it, this is what the story is about. And seeing it in this way, as it relates to its context in Luke’s gospel, helps provide a discerning way to understand its overall truth rather than merely the many truths that have been derived from it.
Are we willing to devote ourselves to truth first in our lives? And how would doing so determine how we offer compassion and kindness to others?
Blessings let us be; with wisdom, of course!
Pastor Bret
7/13/2022