"Few things are needful--or indeed only one."
 |
| Martha and Mary, painted through the prism of bias |
She had a sister called Mary, who sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he said.
But Martha was distracted by all the preparations that had to be made. She came to him and asked, “Lord, don’t you care that my sister has left me to do the work by myself? Tell her to help me!”
“Martha, Martha,” the Lord answered, “you are worried and upset about many things, but few things are needed—or indeed only one. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken away from her.” (Luke 10:38-42, NIV)
Jesus and his disciples apparently stopped in at Martha's and Mary’s house as they traveled. It sounds like it was primarily Martha’s house: “. . . Martha opened her home to him.” Whether or not their brother Lazarus was home on this occasion is uncertain, but Martha and Mary will again encounter Jesus and the disciples four days after Lazarus’ death when Jesus will be greeted by Martha who brings him to her home where he asks for Mary and where he weeps with Mary and raises Mary’s brother from the dead. John’s gospel makes certain one point is clear: that this Mary is the same one who poured expensive perfume on Jesus’ feet and dried them with her hair, an almost-erotic tie between them seemingly implied.
The Mary/Martha episodes—like the gospel narratives generally—are anecdotal. What Jesus was teaching about when Martha asked him to send Mary to help with the duties of hospitality is not mentioned. What Martha was cooking or whether or not Jesus was staying the night isn’t mentioned. It’s paucity of content signals that it’s included primarily to make a point, much like a parable or allegory. The point seems to be that it’s necessary to do what Mary was doing—sitting at Jesus’ feet to learn from him—and if that were ever to displace housekeeping and cooking, even hospitality, well, so be it.
The problem with interpreting anecdotes beyond narrators’ intentions is obvious; in this case one can easily come to the conclusion that Martha’s hospitality is being denigrated—by a guest, no less—and/or that despite Martha’s generosity in opening her home to travelers, it’s lazy Mary who’s preferred. That impression can easily be read into the Lazarus-raising story where Martha brings Jesus into her home and where he asks for Mary and weeps with Mary at Lazarus’ tomb. (John 11:17-44) It’s Martha who’s rebuked at the tomb-side for conjecturing that there would be a bad odour if the stone were rolled away.
Martha is the foil against which a point about faith in Christ is being illustrated by the narrator.
To read literally is to read as the writer intended, not as we prefer. To miss, misrepresent, or misconstrue the intention cheapens and cramps the import of anecdotal gospel narratives. The writer of Luke did not intend that we would eulogize the person Mary and devalue the person Martha. That was most certainly not his point.
To get at the intention, I find it useful to think of Mary and Martha as one person . . . and me as that person: when I allow the pressures and anxieties of the material world (Martha) to draw me away from the presence of Christ (Mary), I’ve missed out on a wonderful, necessary blessing. And regarding the Lazarus story, when I limit my faith and confidence in Christ to that which I’ve observed and have come to expect and predict materially, I put unnecessary, debilitating limits on divine, unexpected possibilities.
Conversely, if I find myself debating whether or not the raising of Lazarus was metaphorical or literal, or if I read into the anecdotes that Mary and Jesus were lovers, or if I find myself capable only of picturing and pitying poor Martha for being rebuked by Jesus—twice—despite her good heart and generous intentions, I can be pretty sure that I’m not reading the narratives, but that I’m reading my biases into them.
And—I think we can agree—the incidence of reading biases into scripture doesn’t need any more support than it already has!
Comments
Post a Comment