Martha and Mary: A Study in the interpretation of Luke 10:38-42

Chris Gousmett

The story of Martha and Mary in Luke 10 has often been seen as an example of the
priority which should be given to the devotional life as opposed to merely worldly
labour. This story was a popular passage in later Patristic writers, who set the pattern
for its interpretation right down to the present day.

Martha has usually had a bad press. She has been seen as the bossy one, the
unspiritual one, the jealous housewife who expected her sister to help her rather than
indulging herself in idle chit-chat with Jesus. But there are other traditions which
somewhat balance this. Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendell reports that Martha was made
the patron saint of housewives and cooks. 1 She is also commemorated in some little-
known works of art (both paintings and sculpture) which portray her as the slayer of
the dragon, just like St. George. The origins of this image are obscure. She has also
been portrayed in a Renaissance painting as one who stayed awake together with Mary
praying outside the garden of Gethsemane, while the (male) disciples fell asleep.

However, in spite of these positive images, it must be admitted that Martha has
basically had a bad press. The reasons for this lie in the dualistic world-view within
which this passage has been interpreted, in which mundane matters of life, domestic
chores and such-like, are contrasted unfavorably with spiritual concerns. While Mary
sits at the feet of Jesus and listens to him, Martha bustles around preparing a meal.
When eventually she finds that the work is being left to her and that Mary is not
showing any inclination to assist, Martha complains to Jesus and asks whether he
thinks this is right and fair. The reply Jesus gives is seen as a rebuke to the one with
worldly concerns and a commendation for the one with spiritual concerns, thereby
indicating that there is a dichotomy between life and faith, or at the very least a certain
priority of one over the other.

Patristic Interpretation

The Patristic interpretation of this passage clearly shows how the dichotomy was
established. It was only in the fourth century that this passage received extensive

1
Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendell. The women around Jesus. Reflections on authentic
personhood. London: S.C.M., 1982, p. 20.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 1

consideration. Augustine commented on it in numerous works. He sees the attitude of
Mary as an anticipation of the joy of the believers when they see Jesus returning at the
end of the Age. Her attention to the Truth (even in the limited form possible in this
age) prefigures the eternal contemplation of the Lord in the age to come. Martha on
the other hand was preoccupied with the things of this age, which is good and useful,
but is destined to pass away. The “best part” chosen by Mary will not be taken away,
while that chosen by Martha will be taken away, since it is ministry to a need which
will itself pass away.2

In a pair of sermons on this passage, Augustine develops this dualistic approach in

detail. He says that Martha sought to feed the Lord, while Mary sought to be fed by
the Lord. He compares the many things which Martha was troubled about (a point
repeated by John Cassian3), with the one thing Mary was concentrating on. Augustine
does not denigrate Martha’s work directly, but he does say that while both occupations
were good, one was better, the one thing which was needful, expedient and necessary.4
Augustine compares the contemplative attitude of Mary, “which shall not be taken
away from her” because it is spiritual and eternal, with the concerns of Martha to feed
the physical body; which concerns will be taken away, since in the heavenly country
there will be no one hungry or thirsty or sick. We will be fed there on spiritual things,
but we will have nobody to feed with physical things; therefore what Mary has chosen
is a foretaste of heaven, and will be eternal, while what Martha has chosen is earthly,
that which will eventually pass away.5

However, Augustine must have been aware that he had thereby got himself into a
quandary, since in the next sermon he takes up this passage again, and feels compelled
to refute the idea that we should all then abandon care of the poor and the needy to
engage in contemplation. He has to repeat that he did not say that caring for the needs
of the body was bad, but that contemplation of the things of God was better. 6 While
Martha was caring about something good, namely the needs of the mortal flesh of the
incarnate Lord, Mary was caring about listening to the Word who was incarnate in
that flesh. Since the Word was greater than the flesh in which it was incarnate, Mary
2
Augustine. On the Trinity 1.10.20. NPNF 1/3, p. 28.
3
John Cassian. Conferences 1.8. NPNF 2/11, p. 298.
4
Augustine. Sermons on New Testament Lessons 53.1-3. NPNF 1/6, pp. 427-428.
5
Augustine. Sermons on New Testament Lessons 53.6. NPNF 1/6, p. 428. Sermon 159.14.17.
PL 38, 925. Sermon 179.3.3-7.7. PL 38, 967-970.
6
Augustine. Sermons on New Testament Lessons 54.2. NPNF 1/6, p. 429.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 2

therefore was attending to something better than Martha.7 Augustine goes on to stress
that what Martha was doing was not vile, or wicked, or ungodly, it was in fact
perfectly commendable; however that which Mary was engaged in was superior, as it
was the “image of things to come” while the concerns of Martha were “the image of
things present.” It is only when we lay aside the concerns of domestic and business
life that we are able to listen to the Lord.8

As a result of this Augustine is not able to affirm the inherent goodness and validity of
the domestic way of life, as it is implicitly devalued in comparison to the
contemplative life, in spite of all his protestations that it is good and commendable,
since he does concede that the contemplative life is better.

Augustine discusses the episode in John 12:2 when Martha served a meal for Jesus,
and tries to interpret this in the same dualistic framework. He says that the serving of
Christ to which we are called is not the preparation of food for the body, since this
was done by those who had Christ’s physical presence. While this was good, it was
only possible for a few since we no longer have the physical presence of Christ. 9
However, there is a problem for Augustine in this interpretation; Judas also “served at
the table” on this occasion, since he had provided the funds for the food from the
money bag he kept on behalf of the disciples. This interpretation of Augustine’s does
not give the best sense of the Greek NT text, which implies the meal was provided by
Lazarus and Martha and Mary. Similarly when at the Passover meal Jesus said to
Judas, “What you have to do, do quickly” it was assumed by the disciples this had to
do with preparations for the meal [John 13:27-30]. Since therefore both Judas and
Martha were “serving” Jesus in the same way, it is impossible for Augustine to
consider that this is what is meant by serving Christ. Instead, he says, to serve Christ
is to obey his commands and perform good works on behalf of others.10 But again
Augustine has implicitly denigrated the serving of meals, and the work of Martha in
particular, since he correlates it not with serving those with needs, but with the
betrayal of Judas.

7
Augustine. Sermons on New Testament Lessons 54.3. NPNF 1/6, pp. 429-430.
8
Augustine. Sermons on New Testament Lessons 54.4. NPNF 1/6, p. 430.
9
Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel of John 51.12. NPNF 1/7, p. 286.
10
Augustine. Homilies on the Gospel of John 51.12. NPNF 1/7, p. 286.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 3

Augustine uses this passage in passing to make a social comment, using it to criticise
the proud who made others stand up in their presence, while “even a woman” was
allowed to sit before the Lord himself.11

Jerome continues the dualistic interpretation of the story. He says of this passage, “Be
then like Mary; prefer the food of the soul to that of the body.” 12 However, Jerome
also commends Martha’s work in preparing a meal for the Lord in John 12:2. He
includes that passage in a list of those whom the Lord rewards for their service.13

John Cassian, the fervent advocate of monasticism, also compares the active and
contemplative lives, and he says concerning this story, “Contemplation then, that is,
meditation on God, is the one thing, the value of which all the merits of our righteous
acts, all our aims at virtue, come short of.”14 John Cassian identifies this
contemplation of God and heavenly things as the highest purpose of the human heart;
thus he says that “Whatever is alien to this, however great it may be, should be given
the second place, or even treated as of no consequence, or perhaps as hurtful.” He then
illustrates this with the story of Martha and Mary, thus thereby denigrating the
preparation of meals and the serving of others as something secondary, of no
consequence, or even harmful to the “spiritual” life! John concedes that what Martha
was doing was a “sacred service,” not because preparing meals in itself was important,
but because she was “ministering to the Lord and his disciples.” So preparing a meal
was sacred not because it was something which was commended by God, but only
because in this instance it was service to Christ. John Cassian further describes her
work as “pious care” and “praiseworthy service,” but when Martha requested the Lord
to tell Mary to help in this task, she was told that it was less important than
“meditation, that is, divine contemplation.” Everything else, no matter how good or
necessary or useful it might be, is secondary to this greater good. John then says that
while the Lord does not “blame” Martha, “yet in praising the one, He implies the other
is inferior.” Further, that which Martha is concerned for “can be taken away from
her,” but the contemplation in which Mary is engaged “cannot be taken from her.”15

11
Augustine. On the catechising of the uninstructed 13.19. NPNF 1/3, p. 297.
12
Jerome. Letter 22.24. NPNF 2/6, p. 32.
13
Jerome. Letter 71.2. NPNF 2/6, p. 152.
14
John Cassian. Conferences 3.3. NPNF 2/11, p. 521.
15
John Cassian. Conferences 1.8. NPNF 2/11, p. 298.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 4

The monastic context appears also in other patristic interpretations, and it is perhaps
the growth in monasticism that rendered this passage and its interpretation so popular.

Evagrius interprets this passage to teach that only a few dishes of food are necessary,
and compares the concern of Martha for “many things” with the “one thing” of
listening to the divine word.16 A similar emphasis on few dishes of food for monks is
found also in Nilus of Ancyra,17 Antiochus of Saba,18 and Basil the Great.19 Pseudo-
Macarius (a member of the ascetical sect of the Messalians) in his so-called Great
Letter, criticises certain extremists in the movement who refuse to do any work on the
basis that only “one thing is needful,” namely prayer.20

Basil sees Martha as ministering to the visible man, while Mary ministered to the
invisible Lord and God. He draws out the dichotomy of the spiritual and the material
in his interpretation.

Here we see the two states placed before us by means of the two
women; the lower, choosing to serve Him in corporeal ministrations
which also is most profitable, and that which, ascending to the
contemplation of the sacred mysteries, is the more spiritual.21

Cyril of Alexandria saw Mary as a symbol of the gentiles, and Martha as a symbol of
the Jews. He interprets the “one thing” as love, while the “many things” are the many
precepts of the Law of Moses.22 Olympiodorus of Alexandria follows Cyril in
correlating the “one thing” with love and the “many things” with the Law of Moses,
but he does not interpret Mary and Martha as symbols of the Jews and the Gentiles.23

16
Evagrius Ponticus. Rerum monachalium rationes earumque quietem appositio 3. PG 40,
1253C-D.
17
Nilus of Ancyra. De monachorum praestantia 16. PG 79, 1080B.
18
Antiochus of Saba. Homilia 14. De distratione, alias, importuna occupatione. PG 89, 1472B-
C.
19
Basil the Great. Regulae fusius tractate 20. PG 31, 973B.
20
W Jaeger. Two rediscovered works of ancient Christian literature. Leiden, 1954, p. 288.
Cited in: A Baker. “One thing necessary.” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 27 (1965) 133.
21
Basil. Constitutiones Monasticae 1. Sunday Sermons of the Great Fathers. Trans. and ed. by
M F Toal. Chicago: Henry Regnery. Vol. 2, 1958, p. 378.
22
Cyril of Alexandria. In Joannem 7.9.6. PG 74, 40.
23
Olympiodorus of Alexandria. In Ecclesiasten. PG 93, 489.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 5

Gregory the Great also makes a clear contrast between the contemplative life and the
active life, and bemoans the fact that he is burdened with the latter so as to be unable
to pursue the former.

I have loved the beauty of the contemplative life as a Rachel, barren,

but keen of sight and fair [Genesis 29], who, though in her quietude
she is less fertile, yet sees the light more keenly. But, by what
judgement I know not, Leah has been coupled with me in the night, to
wit, the active life; fruitful, but tender-eyed; seeing less, but bringing
forth more. I have longed to sit at the feet of the Lord with Mary, to
take in the words of His mouth; and lo, I am compelled to serve with
Martha in external affairs, to be careful and troubled about many
things.24

Elsewhere Gregory makes the same comparison between the active life and the
contemplative life based on the story of Martha and Mary. The latter, “being rapt in
the contemplative, she transcended the active life, which Martha her sister still
pursued.”25

An exception to this approach is found in the works of John Chrysostom, who has a
better sense of the meaning of the passage, although he does not appear to have
grasped the full redemptive-historical significance of the situation. He argues that we
must not be careful about tomorrow, laying up treasures in this world, but this is
according to him not incompatible with work in this world, since

...a man may do no work, and yet lay up treasure for the morrow; and a
man may work, and yet be careful for nothing; for carefulness and
work are not the same thing; it is not as trusting to his work that a man
works, but that he may impart to him that has needs.26

In this connection he says of Martha that it was not the proper time to be busy at work,
but rather she ought to have been listening to the Lord. Christ told her not to be
worried about food, not because he wanted her to be idle, but because he wanted her

24
Gregory the Great. Epistle 5. NPNF 2/12, p. 75.
25
Gregory the Great. Epistle 25. NPNF 2/12, p. 219. Compare his Morals on Job 6.100.28.
26
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John 44. NPNF 1/14, p. 158.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 6

to listen to him. Chrysostom rebuked Martha not because of the “inferior” activities
she was busy with, but because her priorities were wrong. Chrysostom presents Christ
as saying “I came to teach you necessary things, but you are anxious about a meal.” 27
He says that we are instructed not to labour for perishing food, but this does not mean
idleness, but rather that we are able thereby to benefit others. In fact, he says, idleness
can be rightly understood as the “perishable food” since idleness is the root of
wickedness. Thus to labour for the “perishable food” is to be idle and gluttonous and
preoccupied with luxurious living. Chrysostom thus has a more positive view of the
preparation of meals, since it is the timing that Martha has got wrong, not the activity.

Mediaeval interpretations

The mediaeval mystic Eckhart took this passage to mean that detachment from the
world is what Martha lacked. After saying that he had read many books by pagans and
in the OT and NT, Eckhart said that he set himself to find the greatest virtue with
which man can “most completely and closely conform himself to God, with which he
can by grace become that which God is by nature,” and he came to the conclusion that
there is

...no other virtue better than a pure detachment from all things;
because all other virtues have some regard for created things, but
detachment is free from all created things. That is why our Lord said to
Martha, ‘One thing is necessary’ (Luke 10:42), which is as much to
say, ‘Martha, whoever wants to be free of care and to be pure must
have one thing, and that is detachment.’28

Eckhart did not deny that we have to be involved in various activities in life. He was
not commending contemplation over against activity. Instead, he wanted to see the
virtue of detachment expressed in those various activities. The person who is
spiritually mature is able to be detached in the middle of activity.

Giving his preference, where his will is concerned, to the rest and
leisure of Mary, to the extent that necessity demands he accepts the toil
and the business of Martha, yet does this with as much peace and quiet
27
John Chrysostom. Homilies on the Gospel of John 44. NPNF 1/14, p. 158.
28
Meister Eckhart. On detachment. In: The essential sermons, Commentaries, Treatises and
Defence. Classics of Western Spirituality. London: S.P.C.K., 1981, p. 285.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 7

 of spirit as he can, and always brings himself back from that manifold
distraction to the one thing necessary.29

Guerric of Igny applies the statement “Mary has chosen the best part” to Mary the
mother of the Lord, of whom he says that it is apt to apply this statement to her. He
overlooks the centrality of Martha in this story, since he says that both Marys
welcomed the Lord, one under her roof and the other into her womb. 30 He then goes
on to say that Mary the mother of the Lord “showed herself to be a Martha in her care
for the Child’s rearing in such a way that nonetheless she fulfilled the part of Mary in
her application to knowledge of the Word.”31 Thus, “since she was not careless or
remiss in Martha’s work she has not been left without Mary’s fruit. Toil is in action,
fruit or reward in contemplation.”32

Thomas Aquinas continues the distinction between the active life (Martha) and the
contemplative life (Mary).33 Thomas says that the contemplative life is loved for its
own sake, while the active life is directed to something else. 34 According to Thomas,
the “best part” of Mary’s is the contemplative life. 35 This is also stated elsewhere, as
he says that “it would seem that the contemplative life is more excellent than the
active.”36 Thomas explicity refers to Aristotle in his interpretation of Luke 10:42, as
he says:

Again man’s good is threefold as stated in Ethic 1.8; one consisting in

external things, for instance riches; another, consisting in bodily
goods; the third, consisting in the goods of the soul among which the
goods of the contemplative life take precedence of the goods of the
active life, as the Philosopher shows (Ethic 10.7), and as our Lord
declared (Luke 10:42) Mary has chosen the better part.37
29
Guerric of Igny. Sermon 49.2. Liturgical Sermons. Spencer: Cistercian Publications. Volume
2, 1971, p. 180.
30
Guerric of Igny. Sermon 50.1. Liturgical Sermons. Volume 2, 1971, p. 186.
31
Guerric of Igny. Sermon 50.3. Liturgical Sermons. Volume 2, 1971, p. 189.
32
Guerric of Igny. Sermon 50.3. Liturgical Sermons. Volume 2, 1971, p. 190.
33
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica Q. 171, Prologue. London: Burns Oates and
Washbourne, 1934. Vol. 14, p. 1. Q. 180.3. Vol 14, p. 107. Q. 182.1. Vol 14, pp. 133-134.
34
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica Q.182.1. London: Burns Oates and Washbourne, 1934.
Vol 14, p. 134.
35
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica Q.188.6. Vol 14, p. 274.
36
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica Q.182.1. Vol 14, p. 133.
37
Thomas Aquinas. Summa Theologica Q.152.2. Vol 13, p. 110.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 8

Reformation interpreters

Martin Luther sees these two women as exemplars of works and faith, and places one
in priority to the other, in a polemic against works righteousness. 38 He says that the
work that Martha does is fine, but it will not attain the goal. Similarly, working in any
position, whether as a servant or as a pastor, will not attain the goal. But hearing Jesus
is the secret of attaining the goal.39 In his lectures on Galatians (1531), Luther stresses
the difference between works and faith, and cites Luke 10:41-42, and says of this,
“Therefore a man becomes a Christian, not by working but by listening.”40

In his lectures on the Psalms (1513-1515), he commented with reference to Psalm

121:3, “Hence He also said of Mary Magdalene (that is, of the contemplative, who are
the most perfect), that she chose not the total best, but ‘the best part’.” 41 He continues
the contrast of contemplative and active in other passages where he discusses Martha
and Mary,42 as well as a contrast between concern for temporal things and a concern
for spiritual things.43

In his sermon on John 14:13-14 (1537), Luther identifies the “one thing needful” with
the confession that Christ is the one true God, 44 while in his earlier lectures on 1
Timothy (1527-1528) he says that it is to believe in God and love one’s neighbour. 45
In Concerning the Ministry (1523) he says the “one thing needful” is “the Word of
God, in which man has his life,”46 while in Concerning the order of public worship
(1523) he says it is “to hear [Christ’s] word daily.”47

38
Martin Luther. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 6-8. Luther’s Works. St. Louis:
Concordia. Vol. 23, 1959, pp. 247-248. Luther accepted the identification of Mary of Bethany
with Mary Magdalene, a view common in the Middle Ages and still current at the time of the
Reformation.
39
Martin Luther. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 6-8. Luther’s Works, Vol. 23,
1959, p. 247.
40
Martin Luther. Lectures on Galatians. Luther’s Works, Vol. 26, 1963, p. 460.
41
Martin Luther. First Lectures on the Psalms. Luther’s Works, Vol. 11, 1976, p. 541.
42
Martin Luther. First Lectures on the Psalms. Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, 1974, p. 254.
43
Martin Luther. First Lectures on the Psalms. Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, 1974, p. 127.
44
Martin Luther. Sermons on the Gospel of St. John, Chapters 14-16. Luther’s Works, Vol. 24,
1961, p. 97.
45
Martin Luther. Lectures on 1 Timothy. Luther’s Works, Vol. 28, 1973, p. 314.
46
Martin Luther. Concerning the Ministry. Luther’s Works, Vol. 40, 1958, p. 10.
47
Martin Luther. Concerning the order of public worship. Luther’s Work, Vol. 40, p. 14.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 9

Luther still sees a contrast between the active and the contemplative life in this
passage, but he does not set up a hierarchy of merit, he simply expresses a preference
for that which is most satisfying.

Psalm 55:6. Who will give me wings? This is the language of those
who are in an active life and in the public eye, like Martha, troubled
about many things (Luke 10:41), since with weariness they endure
rebellion, opposition and envy from every side, as did Christ from the
Jews. And therefore they sigh for a contemplative and quiet life of
agreeable endeavours and they crave to be set free from this bother.48

He sees the “many things” Martha is concerned with merely as distractions and
sources of frustration in life, rather than as intrinsically inferior activities.49

Calvin in contrast to Luther abandons the Patristic and Mediaeval approaches to this
passage, and says that it has been distorted by seeing in it a commendation of the
contemplative life over against the active life.

As this passage has been basely distorted into the commendation of

what is called a Contemplative life, we must inquire into its true
meaning, from which it will appear, that nothing was farther from the
design of Christ, than to encourage his disciples to indulge in
indolence, or in useless speculations. It is, no doubt, an old error, that
those who withdraw from business, and devote themselves entirely to
an contemplative, lead an Angelical life. For the absurdities which the
Sorbonnists utter on this subject they appear to have been indebted to
Aristotle, who places the highest good, and ultimate end, of human life
in contemplation, which, according to him, is the enjoyment of virtue.
When some men were driven by ambition to withdraw from the
ordinary intercourse of life, or when peevish men gave themselves up
to solitude and indolence, the resolution to adopt that course was
followed by such pride, that they imagined themselves to be like the
angels, because they did nothing; for they entertained as great a
contempt for the active life, as if it had kept them back from heaven.
48
Martin Luther. First lectures on the Psalms. Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, 1974, p. 254.
49
Martin Luther. Lectures on Romans. Luther’s Works, Vol. 25, 1972, p. 352. First lectures on
the Psalms. Luther’s Works, Vol. 10, 1974, p. 204.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 10

 On the contrary, we know that men were created for the express
purpose of being employed in labour of various kinds, and that no
sacrifice is more pleasing to God, than when every man applies
diligently to his own calling, and endeavours to live in such a manner
as to contribute to the general advantage.50

Calvin says that interpreting this story as a commendation of the contemplative life
over the active life is manifestly absurd. He asks, although Luke says Mary sat at the
feet of Jesus, does this mean she did nothing else through her whole life? Instead he
refers it to the appropriate distribution of time by disciples. They will not always hear,
but shall put into practice what they learn: “for there is a time to hear, and a time to
act.”51 Calvin says it is foolish for monks to draw a comparison between a
contemplative and an active life from this passage, since it tells us simply how Christ
wishes to be received.52 Calvin says that the problem with Martha was that Christ
wished to be entertained frugally, not at great expense of time and effort, but by so
doing Martha distracted herself from the advantage of Christ’s visit. He stresses the
“much serving” mentioned by Luke, and that Christ said he would be satisfied with
little. In addition to Martha’s over-enthusiastic labours, she despised her sister’s
willingness to listen to Christ. Calvin says that “This example warns us, that in doing
what is right, we must take care not to think more highly of ourselves than of
others.”53

Calvin comments on the “one thing necessary” that it does not mean that Christ
commends only one form of activity and thereby excludes diversity of employment.54
He states that what it means is that no matter what activity believers are engaged in,
they must all be directed towards the one object, and if we do not, then we “wander to
no purpose.” He says that Christ does not mean that only one activity is proper, but
that proper order is necessary, so that merely secondary matters become our chief
concern.55

50
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2. Edinburgh:
Calvin Translation Society, 1845, pp. 142-143.
51
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2,, p. 143.
52
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2,, p. 143.
53
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2,, p. 144.
54
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2, p. 144, n. 3.
55
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2, p. 144.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 11

Calvin stresses that it was Mary’s choice of a good activity taken when the
opportunity presents itself, that is commended.56 He says that some interpret the
phrase “which shall not be taken away from her” to mean that the fruit of heavenly
doctrine can never perish. Calvin says he has no objection to that opinion, “but I have
followed the view which appeared to me to be more in accordance with Christ’s
design.”57

Modern interpreters

The dualistic approach taken by the Patristic writers which sets the “worldly”
concerns of Martha over against the “spiritual” interests of Mary is perpetuated in
more recent times. This can be seen from the various commentaries on this passage.
Even a Calvinistic commentator like Geldenhuys (NICNT) sees in this passage
contrasts between “spiritual fellowship” and “outward activities.” He comments that
“Material things and the honouring of [Christ] through outward means are evanescent
matters, but the soul’s communion with the Lord can never be removed, not even by
death.”58 He goes on to add:

This story should not be taken to mean that the Saviour taught that a
life of quiet worship and contemplation is the right form of religion
and that an active Christian life is to be disapproved of. There is here
no question of such a contrast. What we do learn is that in our life’s
active service we must not be anxious and agitated, sulky and
dissatisfied with our fellow-Christians or with our Master, and that we
should not busy ourselves to such an extent with outward things that
we neglect the quiet worship of the Lord. The most important part of
our religion is the spiritual exercise of communion with our Redeemer.
When things are right in this respect, we shall also in our practical life
be actively busy in His honour.59

Thus while supposedly rejecting the contrast between contemplative and active
Christianity, Geldenhuys actually perpetuates the distinction and emphasises the

56
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2, p. 145.
57
John Calvin. Commentary on the Harmony of the Evangelists. Volume 2,, p. 145.
58
N Geldenhuys. The Gospel of Luke. New International Commentary on the New Testament.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1951, p. 316.
59
N Geldenhuys. The Gospel of Luke,, p. 316.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 12

importance of “spiritual communion.” G Campbell Morgan also sees a commendation
of devotional life, but stresses that this was in addition to works of service, not instead
of them.

Martha goes on and on until she is distracted; but Mary also sat at His
feet. This is a most vital distinction. Some people seem to imagine that
all she did was to sit herself down, to have a good time. If she had
done that, Christ would never have commended her. Mary knew the
one deep secret that love cannot finally express itself in service. It
must take the place of devotion, of discipleship.60

Similarly Cornelius VanderWaal places the emphasis on the priority of listening to

Jesus over works of service.

Jesus reproached Martha for not seeing what is central, as Mary did:
after Mary had done her duty, she did not look for other household
chores but abandoned her sister - that’s literally what the text says -
and sat down a Jesus’ feet. “One thing is needful,” declared Jesus.
Now, this story has nothing to do with women’s liberation. Jesus did
not come to uproot people but to point out to them what is central,
what they must put first as they carry out their divine calling.61

There is remarkable similarlity to Eckhart’s virtue of detachment in the comments by

S G de Graaf on this passage.

Jesus had to defend Mary against Martha. What Mary did was not
better in itself. If Mary had thought that her listening was better than
Martha’s service, she would also have lost touch with Jesus even as
she was listening to Him. But Mary listened for Jesus’ sake. This is the
central thing in life: to remain close to Him. This is the part Mary
chose, and no one, not even the jealous Martha, could take it away
from her. We too must always seek one thing only, that we abide in
Him in spirit. That is always possible, no matter what we do. Whether

60
G Campbell Morgan. The Gospel according to Luke. Revell, 1931, in loc. Cited in: N
Geldenhuys. The Gospel of Luke,, p. 317, n. 4.
61
C Vanderwaal. Search the Scriptures. Vol. 7, Matthew-Luke. St. Catharines: Paideia Press,
1978, pp. 91-92.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 13

 we listen quietly to His Word or are busily engaged in life for Him
makes no difference. Even though we may have many things to do, we
can still seek to be with Him in spirit. No man can rob us of that. Then
we also acknowledge the calling of others who do something else; we
then refrain from jealousy but are one with them in Him.62

G B Caird thinks Martha saw Mary as selfish, seeking her own pleasure in listening to
Jesus, while she is not like that - but she is rebuked by Jesus for self-concern and self-
pity, since her good works are not self-forgetful. 63 Talbert rebukes Martha as “trying
to be the hostess of the one who came to serve.”64

One frequent interpretation of this passage by contemporary interpreters is that it

teaches the priority of listening to the word of God rather than busyness. Stuhlmueller
says “Nothing else can compensate for the true blessedness of hearing the word of
God and keeping it alive.”65 Similarly Tinsley sees Mary as the “model of the ideal
disciple who can perceive in the words of Jesus something of overriding significance,
what John in his Gospel would have thought of as discerning the “Word” of God in
the “words” of Jesus.”66 Ellis also sees Mary choosing the priority of the Word of God
over other concerns.

Jesus rebukes Martha for diverting Mary from his word to less
essential tasks. The issue is not two kinds of service but religious
busyness which distracts the Christian - preacher or layman - from the
word of Christ upon which all effective service rests. Mary chose “the
best dish” (42, Moffatt), because she saw the priority of the word of
the kingdom to all worldly concerns. Martha’s concern was to be a
proper hostess, Mary’s to be a proper disciple. Jesus’ concern, as ever,
was to serve and fulfill his mission, not to have his rights as a guest.67

62
S G De Graaf. Promise and Deliverance. Vol. 3. Christ’s Ministry and Death. St. Catharines:
Paideia Press, 1979, p. 379.
63
G B Caird. The Gospel of St. Luke. Pelican Gospel Commentaries. London: Adam and
Charles Black, 1968, p. 150.
64
Charles H Talbert. Reading Luke. A literary and theological commentary on the third
Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1984, p. 126.
65
Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Gospel of St. Luke. New Testament Reading Guide. Collegeville:
Liturgical Press, 1964, p. 93.
66
E J Tinsley. The Gospel according to Luke. Cambridge Bible Commentary. Cambridge
University Press, 1965, p. 121.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 14

A common interpretation in recent commentaries is that the passage presents a
contrast between salvation by works and salvation through love of God. This contrast
is often drawn in connection with the preceding story, the parable of the Samaritan.
Fitzmeyer contends that this episode of Mary and Martha is unrelated to the preceding
passages “unless one wants to see in it another way of inheriting eternal life.” 68 He
mentions that in the preceding episode (the parable of the Samaritan) there was a
contrast between the Samaritan on the one hand, and the Jewish priest and the levite
on the other, while in this episode the contrast is between the perfect hostess and the
perfect disciple, but considers that “that is a superficial consideration at most.”
Fitzmeyer suggests that the love of God might be a motivation for listening to Jesus’
instruction, but there is no reference to such a motivation which would link the
passage in this way to the parable of the Samaritan.69 This is repeated by Stuhlmueller.

Lest the parable of the Good Samaritan become an excuse for

excessive activism, Luke now tells of an incident which took place at
Bethany, a village near Jerusalem.70

Again, Craddock sees the connection beween the parable of the Samaritan and the
example he sets, and the example Mary sets.

Jesus has just met a man skilled in Scripture who has trouble hearing
the word of God, and Jesus offers him an example, a Samaritan. Now
Jesus visits with a woman so busy serving she does not hear the word,
and Jesus offers her an example, her sister. To the man, Jesus said to
go and do; to the woman, Jesus said to sit down, listen and learn.71

Fitzmeyer makes other connections between these two stories.

On the heels of the good Samaritan episode, this one emphasises the
listening to the word of Jesus, something that goes beyond love of

67
E Earle Ellis. The Gospel of Luke. The Century Bible. London: Thomas Nelson, 1966, p.
160.
68
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke (X-XXIV). The Anchor Bible. Garden
City: Doubleday, 1985, p. 891.
69
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke , p. 892.
70
Carroll Stuhlmueller. The Gospel of St. Luke, p. 93.
71
Fred B Craddock. Luke. Interpretation: A Biblical commentary for teaching and
preaching. Louisville: John Knox Press, 1990, pp. 151-152.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 15

 one’s neighbor. Martha’s service is not repudiated by him, but he
stresses that its elaborate thrust may be misplaced. A diakonia that
bypasses the word is one that will never have lasting character;
whereas listening to Jesus’ word is the lasting “good” that will not be
taken away from the listener.72

Craddock also tries to balance the call to serve and the call to reflect, with an
admonishment to reflect on when it is the right time to do one or the other, but gives
little in the way of guidance as to what choices to make at any one time.

The word of God and not food is the one thing needful, for we do not
live by bread alone but by every word that comes from the mouth of
the Lord (Deuteronomy 8:3; Luke 4:4; John 6:27). This is the portion
or dish Mary has chosen. But we must not cartoon the scene: Martha to
her eyeballs in soapsuds, Mary pensively on a stool in the den, and
Jesus giving scriptural warrant for letting dishes pile high in the sink.
If we censure Martha too harshly, she may abandon serving altogether,
and if we commend Mary too profusely, she may sit there forever.
There is a time to go and do; there is a time to listen and reflect.
Knowing which and when is a matter of spiritual discernment. If we
were to ask Jesus which example applies to us, the Samaritan or Mary,
his answer would probably be Yes.73

Thompson also sees a contrast between practical Martha, who is rebuked harshly, and
the practical Samaritan of the previous story, who is commended. This is because of
Jesus’ ruthless demand for absolute priority to be given to himself and his teaching.
Mary has her priorities right. Jesus is stressing that practical living must stem from
listening to him.74

Having just recounted a parable which praises “practical Christianity,”

St. Luke skilfully follows it with a story which balances it. Mary,
sitting in rapt attention, is absorbed in listening to Jesus. Generations
of Christians have seen in her a model of the contemplative life of
72
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke, p. 892.
73
Fred B Craddock. Luke. Interpretation, p. 152.
74
G H P Thompson. The Gospel according to Luke. New Clarendon Bible. Oxford University
Press, 1972, p. 168.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 16

 prayer and meditation. Martha and the Good Samaritan on the one
hand, and Mary on the other, illustrate the two-fold rhythm of the
spiritual life in which service and prayer both have their place. Our
Lord himself is the perfect example of the balance between the two. It
is important to notice that Mary is not praised at the expense of
Martha. The monastic life is not “better” than the secular life, as was
argued from this text in the Middle Ages. Jesus defends Mary against
Martha’s attack. Nor does Jesus rebuke Martha for her practical
management. The gentle rebuke is directed at her fussy anxieties and
her self-pity. To renew her spiritual resources she needs what Mary is
determined to have.75

Danker sees the story of the Samaritan as referring to the second table of the Law,
while the story of Martha refers to the first table. He sees Martha as a legalist who
sees her own performance against the lack of performance in others. Also in
conjunction with the story of the Samaritan, it ensures avoiding activism without
love.76 This comparison of the two tables of the Law also appears in Talbert’s
commentary.

If the parable of the Good Samaritan, at the level of Lukan theology,

dealt primarily with the meaning of the commandment to love one’s
neighbour, this episode deals with the meaning of the first
commandment.77

Brian Beck repeats the same correlation of the parable of the Samaritan and the story
of Martha with the two tables of the law.

The modern reader tends to have sympathy for the hard-pressed

Martha, but it is quite clear that for Luke listening to the word of Jesus
takes priority over service, much as it does in Acts 6:1-6, where the
apostles will not allow themselves to be deflected from prayer and the
ministry (diakonia) of the word by the need to serve at tables
(diakonein trapezais). It is an important corrective to the impression
75
W Wilkinson. Good News in Luke. Glasgow: Collins (Fontana Books), 1974, pp. 68-69.
76
F W Danker. Jesus and the New Age according to St. Luke. St Louis: Clayton, 1972, p. 133.
77
Charles H Talbert. Reading Luke. A literary and theological commentary on the third
Gospel. New York: Crossroad, 1984, p. 125.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 17

 which might otherwise be gained from the parable of the Samaritan.
The two commandments of love are one, but neither component can be
reduced to the other. Obedience, important as it is, can only follow
from a hearing of the word of Jesus.78

Fitzmeyer suggests that the idea that the parable deals with the Second table of the
law, the love of neighbours, while this episode deals with the First table, the love of
God, is stretching a point. 79 A better interpretation of the contrast between these two
passages is given by Craddock, who says that Luke 10:25-42 is about two people who
do not get the point of what he is about or what the reign of God means: the lawyer
and Martha. One is instructed to “go and do,” the other to “sit down and listen.” Jesus’
word is not the same to everyone in every situation and need. Craddock offers the
illuminating analogy of Jesus writing prescriptions and not offering patent medicine.80

Much discussion has focused on the “one thing needful.” It has been suggested that
this means that Jesus told Martha not to bother with a big spread of dishes, but one
dish would be sufficient to provide nourishment. Fitzmeyer takes this view, and sees it
as bearing a deeper meaning.

This passage is somewhat subtle, since Jesus’ answer to Martha’s

fretting request seems at first to reassure her, telling her that she need
prepare only one dish. But when his pronouncement is complete, one
realizes that the “one thing” means more than “one dish” and has taken
on another nuance. It has become the “best part,” and he who has been
part of it guarantees that it will not be taken away from Mary to send
her to help distracted Martha. The episode makes listening to the
“word” the “one thing” needed. In a way it repeats the Lucan message
of 8:15,21. Priority is given to the hearing of the word coming from
God’s messenger over preoccupation with all other concerns. Martha
wanted to honor Jesus with an elaborate meal, but Jesus reminds her
that it is more important to listen to what he has to say. The proper

78
Brian E Beck. Christian Character in the Gospel of Luke. London: Epworth, 1989, p. 24.
Beck stresses that Martha’s activity is service, diakonia (v.40).
79
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke, p. 892. An alternative view is that the
two tables of the Law were identical: they were not separate sections of the covenant
agreement, but separate copies, one for God and one for the people.
80
Fred B Craddock. Luke. Interpretation, p. 149.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 18

 “service” of Jesus is attention to his instruction, not an elaborate
provision for his physical needs.81

It is rather this interpretation given by Fitzmeyer which is exceedingly subtle, and

unlikely to be a genuine meaning we can take from the passage. Caird seeks to omit
reference to “one” or “few” things needful, as an early gloss. He then says there is as a
result no comparison between Martha and Mary. Mary is defended, not praised to the
disparagement of Martha.82

Feminist interpretations

Modern feminist writing adds another dimension to the exegesis of this passage. One
of the most common approaches seems to be that Martha was unable to recognise the
liberation offered to her in being allowed to participate in the teaching sessions of
Jesus. Instead she was, as Ann Loades describes her, “anxious about many things
rather than seizing the priceless opportunity offered to women in discipleship of
Jesus.”83 Mary is seen as the one who breaks out of the mould of traditional roles and
does something previously unheard of: seeking to be part of the circle around a rabbi
as he teaches.

The story in itself is not one we would notice at first glance: an older
sister is disgruntled with her younger sister, and Jesus settles the
trouble. Yet there is more. The hospitality code was of no small
importance to the Jewish people; the women of the household were
expected to entertain their guests with refreshment and tend to their
needs. Mary blatantly chooses another role. Even more surprising,
Jesus accepts it. For Mary is doing the unprecedented: she sits at the
feet of a teacher, a rabbi, in the company of men, and receives his
teaching and religious instruction. As women were not permitted to
touch the Torah or be instructed in its words, Mary’s actions were a
distinct break with Jewish custom. Jesus must have encouraged here;
indeed, there may have been several women present in the room.84

81
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke, p. 892.
82
G B Caird. The Gospel of St. Luke, p. 149.
83
Ann Loades. Searching for lost coins: explorations in Christianity and feminism. London:
S.P.C.K., 1987, p. 61.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 19

Fitzmeyer rejects Laland’s contention that the episode is given to instruct women as to
the proper entertainment of travelling preachers. Rather, Jesus encourages a woman to
learn from him, in contrast to the attitude of the rabbinical tradition.85

Another approach taken by feminists is that Luke is here trying to put women in their
place. They have the option of either sitting submissively being taught by men, or
engaging in domestic duties. Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza cites Laland, who
“suggested that Martha expresses the opinion of some circles in the early church who
sought to limit women’s participation in the community to practical serving
functions.”86 She takes the position that Luke’s treatment of women is not favorable
and suggests that “Martha, who is rebuked by Jesus in this story, represents women in
Luke’s community who are leaders of households. Mary, on the other hand, receives
praise for her submissive and silent behaviour.”87 Powell, however, suggests against
Schüssler Fiorenza, that “Luke portrays Jesus here as challenging the view that a
woman’s role should be limited to such traditional duties as doing housework and
providing hospitality. His defence of Mary, then, does not commend submissiveness
so much as it affirms the right of women to learn the word the same as men.” 88
Schüssler Fiorenza suggests that the ministry of the table and ministry of the word
comes from the division of the one diakonia into two, in which one is subordinated to
the other, as is shown by Luke in Luke 10:38-42, “where Martha is characterized as
‘serving at table,’ while Mary like a rabbinic disciple, listens to the word of Jesus.”89
This interpretation of Schüssler Fiorenza depends heavily on Patristic views of the
passage: views which she does not appear to share, but which for her provide the
meaning of the passage.

84
Janice Nunnally-Cox. Foremothers: Women of the Bible. New York: Seabury Press, 1981,
p. 106.
85
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke, p. 892. Interestingly, Fitzmeyer cites
Proverbs 31:26, “She speaks with wisdom, and faithful instruction is on her tongue.” Cf. the
study by Al Wolters on Proverbs 31. Nature and grace in the interpretation of Proverbs 31:10-
31. Calvin Theological Journal 19 (1984): 153-166.
86
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. In memory of her. A feminist theological reconstruction of
Christian origins. London: S.C.M., 1983, p. 200, n. 11.
87
Mark Allan Powell. What are they saying about Luke? New York: Paulist Press, 1989, p.
95. Powell cites: Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. “Theological criteria and historical
reconstruction: Martha and Mary: Luke 10:38-42.” Center for Hermeneutical Studies Protocol
Series 53 (1987) 1-12.
88
Mark Allan Powell. What are they saying about Luke? p. 96.
89
Elizabeth Schüssler Fiorenza. In memory of her, p. 165.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 20

 [Martha] was the image of the Jewish church in comparison with the
church of Christ; the image of the imperfect earthly church in
comparison with the heavenly church; the image of the active life in
contrast to the contemplative life.90

A redemptive-historical interpretation

The distinction between a contemplative and an active life arises not from the text
itself, but from the preoccupations of a later period which saw Christianity in terms of
contemplation and mystical experience. This is, however, an imposition on the text
which cannot be sustained.

To read this episode as a commendation of contemplative life over

against active life is to allegorize it beyond recognition and to
introduce a distinction that was born only of later preoccupations. The
episode is addressed to the Christian who is expected to be
contemplativus(a) in actione.91

As can be seen, the emphasis in all these interpretations is the spiritual devotion of
Mary, not the redemptive work of Christ. However, examining this passage from a
redemptive-historical perspective leads us to different conclusions. Jesus had not
come to act as a teacher of piety and devotion, but to proclaim the coming of the
kingdom of God, the destruction of all Satan’s works and the setting free of all those
who were in bondage. He came to die as a sacrifice for sin. His visit to Mary and
Martha should be seen in this light. His commendation of Mary’s choice to listen to
him rather than bustle around preparing a meal was not a choice for the spiritual over
against the worldly, but a choice for the significant over the insignificant in terms of
what was currently transpiring in God’s redemptive plan. It is not that personal
devotion (which is not what the text indicates Mary was engaged in) is more
important than preparing meals, a necessary and truly spiritual function if carried out
in service to the Lord. The point is that Mary recognised the immediacy of the
situation with the presence of Jesus that Martha completely missed.

90
Elizabeth Moltmann-Wendell. The women around Jesus. Reflections on authentic
personhood. London: S.C.M., 1982, p. 28.
91
Joseph A Fitzmeyer. The Gospel According to Luke, pp. 892-893.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 21

The story begins with Jesus visiting Martha and Mary. Notice the order: it is Martha
who invites Jesus into her home for a meal, and Luke adds that this Martha, who
showed hospitality to Jesus, had a sister called Mary. This is Martha’s story: Mary
does not say anything or have an active part in any way. 92 Mary sensed that Jesus
would not be around for long, and gave her attention to him while he was still with
them. It was her recognition that this was a unique moment in the history of God’s
redemptive acts that was commended, not her choice of one activity over another.
Martha was busy with many things, but Mary had seen the one thing that (at that stage
in history) was most important: to learn from Jesus about the task which he had come
to fulfil.

Seeing this story as an illustration of the priority of personal devotion over against
housework misses the point entirely. The presence of Jesus was not some mystical
experience which can be repeated in our own devotional lives, so that “just as Mary
spent time with Jesus, so we too should spend time with Jesus.” No, it was a
recognition that for a few brief years, Jesus was present, God incarnated in human
form living among his people, and that Mary should in that situation, when Jesus was
present in her house, give her entire attention to that unique, unrepeatable and
historically significant event.

An interpretation which puts the emphasis on the spiritual devotion of Mary to her
Lord actually moves the thrust of the story away from Jesus to Mary. It establishes
the importance of human devotion rather than the work of Jesus. It makes the focus of
Scripture “the faith of the people of God” rather than the faith which we ought to have
in God. It makes the centre of attention the response of people to God rather than the
revelation by God of himself to his people. In this sense, it is comparable to one of the
most destructive tendencies in modern liberal theology: centring on human faith rather
than divine revelation. A concentration on the devotion of Mary rather than on the
presence of Jesus in a unique unrepeatable stage in God’s redemptive plan makes the
Scriptures a human-centred book which reveals more about us than it does about God.
It removes God from the centre, focusing on human faith, and thereby leaves a void
which will be filled not by the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, but by any
conception of God we care to generate. Thus the God worshipped by the people of
God may be nothing more than their own perception of God, rather than the God who

92
G B Caird. The Gospel of St. Luke, p. 149.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 22

revealed himself uniquely in Christ. A shift of focus from the presence of Jesus as the
incarnation of God in a unique unrepeatable historical way to the devotion of one of
his followers eventually leaves us destitute of a relationship with God altogether, the
exact opposite of the intention of that interpretation, but the result nevertheless. The
focus of the passage is on the faith of Mary, and not the person of Christ and the
mission on which he was engaged.

Martha is not contrasted with her so-called spiritual sister who was engaged in
listening to the Lord, because she was busy with so-called unspiritual work like
cooking a meal. Rather, she failed to see that it was not the proper time to be busy at
work. She ought to have been listening to the Lord at that time. Christ told her not to
be worried about food, not because he wanted her to be idle, but because he wanted
her to listen to him. He rebuked Martha not because of the “inferior” activities she
was busy with, but because her priorities were wrong.

The Messiah was on his way to Jerusalem to die to secure redemption for all
humankind. In Luke 9:51-53 we read, “As the time approached for him to be taken up
into heaven, Jesus resolutely set out for Jerusalem. And he sent messengers on ahead,
who went into a Samaritan village to get things ready for him; but the people there did
not welcome him, because he was heading for Jerusalem.” And not long after
commencing his journey towards Jerusalem to die, he calls on Martha and her sister
Mary. However, Martha failed to discern the times: she was not aware that the climax
of the redemptive work of God throughout all of human history was imminent, from
the first promise of the Messiah to Adam and Eve in the garden of Eden, to the exodus
of Israel from Egypt, and the coming of the prophets to foretell his advent. Jesus had
announced his intention to go to Jerusalem, which is why the Samaritans refused to
receive him. He had also sent out the seventy-two disciples to announce the coming of
the kingdom of God. It was common knowledge that Jesus was on his way to
Jerusalem; but Martha ignored all this, and bustled around preparing an elaborate
meal.

Craddock insists that the section of Luke from 9:51 to 19:28 is all part of the travel
narrative, commencing from when Jesus “set his face to go to Jerusalem.” Everything
that lies in this section is to be interpreted in the light of this journey to Jerusalem. 93

93
Fred B Craddock. Luke. Interpretation, p. 139.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 23

The same insight is found in William Barclay, who says that this episode shows us the
wrong kind of kindness.

Think where Jesus was going when this happened. He was on His way
to Jerusalem - to die. His whole being was taken up with the intensity
of that inner battle to bend His will to the will of God. When Jesus
came to that home in Bethany it was a great day; and Martha was eager
to celebrate it by - as we say - laying on the best the house could give.
So she rushed and fussed and cooked; and that was precisely what
Jesus did not want. All He wanted was quiet. With the Cross before
Him, and with the inner tension in His heart, He had turned aside to
Bethany to find an oasis of calm away from the demanding crowds if
only for an hour or two; and that is what Mary gave Him, and that is
what Martha, in her kindness, did her best to destroy.94

There is an evident denigration of “women’s work” in these interpretations, which

contrast caring for bodily needs, that is, preparing meals, with contemplation, or
caring for the needs of the spirit and the things of God. This negative evaluation of
preparing meals is not consistent with the creation- and life-affirming perspective of
Scripture as a whole, but is an imposition arising from a dualistic and world-denying
worldview. Scripture nowhere denigrates life in this world, or considers our daily
activities as unspiritual or unimportant to God. What it does condemn is carrying out
such activities as though God was irrelevant to them. As Paul says in his letter to the
Corinthians, “So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of
God.” And in Proverbs 31 we read of the wise woman, who was commended for her
faith: that is, she understood what it meant to live obediently before God, and her
wisdom and faith is expressed in providing food and clothing for her family, for her
skill in agriculture and in land dealings, and her ability to turn a profit from her
business activities. This is the woman who fears the Lord and who is to be praised: a
woman skilled in preparing meals, in managing a farm, and in conducting a business.
These activities of hers are spiritual, because they are carried out through the insight
and strength which the Holy Spirit gives.

94
William Barclay. The Gospel of Luke. The Daily Study Bible. Edinburgh: Saint Andrew
Press, 1956, pp. 144-145.

© Chris Gousmett 2015 24