Where We Go From Here...

Source

Today, each of the women in Christ’s ministry can serve as an emotive window for those of us trying to follow after him as our Lord.  Being abandoned or rejected five times, as the Samaritan woman may have been, may resonate with those of us who have been involved in serial monogamous relationships; even those of us who have been taught by contemporary culture to experience as many sexual partners as possible before settling down in marriage.  Yet, we find that the common experience is that at the end of these types of relationships, there is a hollow rejection and impression of decreased worth, as this woman likely experienced.  Perhaps for some of us today, the very fact that she has had many partners, and is not a prostitute, might make her relationship with Jesus more accessible and vibrant. 

When considering Mary and Martha, it is important to balance the two extremes these women enact.  Jesus tells the lawyer preceding their story to go and do likewise, not merely go and contemplate the gospel message, or go and serve until burnout.  Much like the anointing, which was acceptable while Jesus was with them, sitting at his feet to the negation of all else may have been an extraordinary expression of devotion.  Yet now that the Kingdom is here, with its work handed over to the church, neither extreme, Martha’s doing versus Mary’s contemplating, is ideal in and of itself. 

The clear use of women in Jesus’ incarnate ministry should provide a template for contemporary churches to model.  Woman today, as in Jesus’ immediate context, need to be permitted to express their individual gifts in an edifying manner for the whole body of Christ, not solely for other women or children.  Whether it is through missions like the Samaritan woman, leadership like Martha, study as with Mary, or worship and service like the woman from Bethany. 

As a woman in contemporary western culture, who is afforded the opportunity to pursue theological education, I appear to have little in common with the women in the gospels, save a faith in Jesus Christ as Messiah and Lord.  As such, it would be ill-advised for me to promote a feminist theology over and above my male brethren.  In fact, because I have been given so much, I am more like the Pharisees or disciples; thus my focus must not be on advancing a feministic gospel, but rather the gospel that has come to save the lost, free the oppressed, welcome the outcast, and lift up the downtrodden.  Gender, ethnicity, socio-economic status, and educational background must not have any bearing on whom I serve.   On a practical level, I am called to humble myself as Christ did, to reach across cultural barriers, with the message of God’s abounding and saving grace.  No matter the circumstance, no matter the outcome, the good news of Jesus Christ is meant to heal lives that have been devastated by whatever lurks in their past.    

And yet...

Every church I have attended has had no women deacons or elders.  Though some have permitted a woman to teach on special occasions, these women may not be ordained.  One church's governing council removed their endorsement from a sister church plant, when that community began permitting married couples to serve as elders together.  Gender-inclusive language is still cumbersome and most times does not enter into the sermons.  When applying for grad-school, I was told by my then-pastor that a seminary education, merely for the sake of education, was a waste of money; yet when my husband sought the same pastoral approval, he was not given similar comments.  I have been firmly instructed by elders that women pastors are unbiblical.  I have been corralled by pastors who say that I can only serve in women’s or children’s ministries.         

Thus, beloved, there is work yet to be done.  We must note that Jesus did not prevent women from physically following him, day after day, unto the cross.  He did not shoo Mary back into the kitchen.  Jesus gave the honor of first missionary to an unnamed foreign woman, and the honor of first resurrection testimony to the formerly demon-possessed Mary Magdalene.  Jesus was ministered to by women, he was financially supported by women, and he utilized women to advance his ministry.  May he continue, through the empowering of the Holy Spirit, to use women, men, the outcasts, and the have-nots to bring honor to his name, and souls into his kingdom,

for the glory of God the Father.        

Did you enjoy this study?  For a refresher, or to catch one you missed, here's a link to the other articles in this series: The Women Who Knew Jesus

Requiem for the Messiah

For the past month, we have looked at a few women in the gospels; women who knew Jesus.  Women who felt the weight of the Savior’s hand, heard the timbre of the Messiah’s voice, and peered into the eyes of the Eternal Son of God.  Each woman who saw the Christ was changed because of him.  Each has been preserved in the Holy Scriptures because her interacting with Jesus has something to teach us, these millennia later.  But the women we have studied are not the only ones who knew our Lord.  A number of women physically journeyed with Jesus during his ministry; some were significant enough participants in his ministry so that they are remembered by name in the gospels: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, and Susanna are listed specifically, along with “many others…[who] were helping to support [Jesus’ ministry] out of their own means.”[1]  That Jesus allowed women a prominent place as disciples would have been revolutionary, and meant that “distinctions of privilege and superiority over subservience and inferiority would not exist” in the age to come.[2] And it is women who stay with Jesus from his trial all the way to the tomb.  Though each gospel author has a different manner of portraying the resurrection, both men and women play a part in each.  Much has been made over Mark’s gospel, as he portrays the women as afraid and saying nothing to anyone; some scholars suggest that cultural conventions of the time prevent their speaking, others claim it was because throughout Mark’s gospel Jesus commanded silence regarding his Messianic identity, and still other scholars blame Mark himself for purposefully silencing women.  However, his seemingly negative treatment of women disciples should be considered an assimilation of women into the greater motif of disciples, as Mark treats the male disciples with the same negativity throughout his gospel.[3]  While in Luke “at the end, it is the women who model the key to the gospel’s power.  At the tomb, the women ‘remembered’ Jesus’ words…and the women carry the story on.”[4] Perhaps Mark’s account is meant to balance any feminist exalting of the female disciples over the males, as Bauckman states, merely because Mark’s gospel ends does not imply an ending to the story as a whole.[5] 

Thus throughout his life, and even after his death and resurrection, women remained faithful to the ministry of Jesus Christ.  The ministry of Jesus was expanded and greater because of these women.  He engaged them in their respective communities and life situations.  He permitted their individual expressions of devotion and service, without placing culturally expected parameters on them.  And after he left them, for the glory of heaven and the building of his kingdom, they carried his message, his story, to others.  They lived his gospel in their lives; they took his presence with them as they walked.  They did not confine him to memory or house him in four walls.  There is no greater requiem for a risen and living Messiah, than the continuation of his incarnate ministry.  Undoubtedly, these women, as they had when they knew him here on earth, called others to Jesus.  Into the love and grace that could then and can still save the world.

Surely, as it was in the first century, so should it be in churches today. 

 

Enjoying this study?  Here is a link to more articles in this series: The Women Who Knew Jesus.

---

[1] Luke 8:2-3.

[2] Baggett, John F.  Seeing Through the Eyes of Jesus: His Revolutionary View of Reality and His Transcendent Significance for Faith.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Page 202.

[3] Corley, Kathleen E.  Women and the Historical Jesus: Feminist Myths of Christian Origins.  Santa Rosa: Polebridge Press, 200, page 137;

and Richard Bauckham, Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Bible, (Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2002); and Baggett, Seeing Through the Eyes. 

[4] Ringe, Sharon.  Westminster Bible Companion: Luke.  ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett.  Lousiville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995. Page 12.

[5]Bauckham, Gospel Women, 293

 

An Exorbitant Worship

source

Four different people, witnessing any event, will recount what happened in four unique ways.  So when we find accounts of decidedly similar situations in scripture, there is always a discussion among scholars as to whether the events are the same or separate.  One such instance marks our final look (for this series anyway) at an individual woman’s interaction with her Messiah.  I encourage you to read each account, noting similarities and differences.  Find what stands out in each; what seems to be the thrust of the narrative. 

The Anointing at Bethany:

Matthew 26:6-13, Mark 14:3-9, Luke7:36-50, John 12:1-8

Matthew, Mark, and John agree that this incident took place in Bethany; Mark and Matthew concur it was at the house of a disciple, Simon the leper; while John merely states that Martha served and Lazarus ate the food.  Luke does not mention a location and renders the host Simon, a Pharisee.  At the outset, there seem to be too many differences for these to be the same event; yet some scholars claim that the events are too closely parallel and extravagant to have happened more than once.[1]  However, in Matthew and Mark, the unnamed woman anoints Christ’s head; in Luke and John, the woman anoints Jesus’ feet.  In each account other than John’s, the woman is portrayed as an interloper; John states that the woman ministering to Jesus is Martha and Lazarus’ sister, Mary.  Judas, again in the Johannine account, is upset with the waste, whereas in Matthew and Mark it is the disciples who regret the excess; in each text the poor being the reason such extravagance is rebuked. In Matthew, Mark, and John, Jesus rebukes the woman’s accusers for singling her out, when there remain poor within their very communities.[2]  He asserts that what she has done for him is “beautiful,” and that implies that they will have time after his burial to tend to the poor.

For the purposes of our study, we will group the Matthean, Markan, and Johnannine account together, because they deal with the extravagance of this woman’s offering in relation to “helping the poor;” while Luke’s text deals with the woman’s character and suitedness to minister to Christ in such a way. 

Considering that Jesus has spent a good deal of time instructing his followers to care for the poor, to tend the widows and orphans, and himself tending to the least among the Jews, Susan Miller, referencing Mark’s telling, makes the claim that the woman is a prophetic figure.  Miller says that this woman’s act of anointing Jesus indicates his kingship, and her breaking of the jar to pour out the ointment foreshadows the last supper, when at the Passover Christ breaks the bread and pours wine as a symbol for his soon to be broken body and poured out blood, on behalf of the sins of the world.[3] She also suggests that the waste, about which the disciples are upset, represents the coming loss of Jesus’ life.  Baggett agrees with this appraisal, seeing the Markan text as an antecedent that prepares Jesus for his burial.[4]  As a funeral offering, a lavish expenditure of 300 denari is not completely uncommon, and Jesus states that this prepares him for burial.[5]    Dr. Craig Blomberg cautions that while this offering is acceptable to Jesus, who does not require a simply ascetic life from his followers, it is to be the exception in a life devoted to meeting the needs of the have-nots.[6]  Thus in these three accounts, we find a woman who is likely distraught over the thought of losing her Messiah.  She symbolically prepares his body for burial.  Acting in the lavish and tender and intimate way a person who has just lost the love of her life might. 

Certainly, in first century Palestine, it was the women who tended to the bodies after death; the women would wash the earthly shells of their loved ones with tears and perfumes, caring for these spent husks one last time before releasing their loved one into the dust.  Thus we find a woman doing what is culturally expected of her for someone she loves so dearly, merely at a time that is deemed inappropriate by her contemporaries.  Yet this woman, instead of saving her resources for a time when, at least to her mind, Jesus would not benefit from them; pours out her possessions while he is still with her.  Because she loves him.   
And Jesus says this is okay. 

Yes, we are to regularly and habitually use our finances and resources on behalf of the poor.  Yes, we are to give of our time, talents, and treasure daily and sacrificially to benefit the poor and outcast.  Yes, this is to be the practice that marks us as Christ followers: the care of those in need.  But in this woman, we see that it is also good to spend ourselves on behalf of those we love. 

No, this isn’t to say, “Well, I love me, so I’m gonna buy that boat/diamond/Tuscan Villa for myself!”  But imagine the love that would be conveyed if you spent that money (assuming that you have it and aren’t borrowing it) on the person closest to your heart.  Your spouse, your parent, your children, your best friend.  To show them, here and now while they are still drawing breath, that you love and treasure them.  Once.  Sacrificially.  For the sake of love.  Imagine the depths of their spirit to which this would speak.  Imagine their joy in knowing they are so delighted in.  So loved. 

Because, poor or otherwise, Christ loved each of us so much that he spent himself once, sacrificially, for us.

An exorbitant sacrifice.  For Love.

And just for fun, here’s a link to the world’s most expensive desserts.  On the off chance that you’re considering a decadent love offering for your special someone…my favorite?  purely for the artistry: The Fortress Stilt Fisherman Indulgence, $14,500.

Enjoying this study?  Here's a link to other articles in this series: The Women Who Knew Jesus

---

[1] Same event: William Hendriksen, New Testament Commentary: Exposition of the Gospel According to Mark, (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1975).  Different events: Sharon Ringe, Westminster Bible Companion: Luke, ed. Patrick D. Miller and David L. Bartlett, (Louisville: Westminster John Knox Press, 1995). 

[2] Craig L. Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches: A Biblical Theology of Material Possessions, (Leicester: APOLLOS, 1999), 142.

[3] Susan Miller, “The Woman who Anoints Jesus (Mk 14:3-9): A Prophetic Sign of the New Creation,” The Journal of the Britain & Ireland School of Feminist Theology 14 (2006) 221.

[4] John F. Baggett.   Seeing Through the Eyes of Jesus: His Revolutionary View of Reality and His Transcendent Significance for Faith.  Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2008. Page 113.

[5] Matthew 26:12, Mark 14:8, and John 12:7.

[6] Blomberg, Neither Poverty Nor Riches, 142.

How a Servant is to Serve, a lesson from Mary and Martha

Martha and Mary by He Qi Chin

I’ve been Martha.  Not in the way you’d expect, the doing-all-the-things-because-I’m-a-beaver manner.  But in that I feel this unexplainable weight to meet the androcentric expectations of my more patristic brethren.  I’ve held my tongue, when I knew it was not what was being required of me at the moment, in settings where more traditional believers facilitated the gathering.  And I’ve relied on men to speak for me in similar settings, when I knew my job was to speak up for myself, or on behalf of sisters who had been belittled into silence.  I’ve hastily back-pedaled when asked if I desire to or was teaching God’s Word; and I’ve looked demurely at the floor, dying a little bit on the inside, instead of challenging the ideals spouted by denominational leaders. 

I’ve been Martha.  Distracted too much with the worry of how other people will react to my intentions or actions, to sit at my Master’s feet and quietly, though publicly, declare that I will be His student, so that I may be a teacher of His way to others.  Worried about the hard work of having to defend why I think what I’m doing is scriptural, why women should be permitted to behave thus.  Worried at the reaction towards my husband, who leans a little more closely to the traditional way of doing things than me.  Worried that my ministry or my voice or even the person for whom I’m advocating might suffer unnecessarily for my brazen speech.  Worried with the details of service, of how things will come off; because these events will reflect on me as a leader and my ability thereto.  Worried.  To the point of distraction, so that I’ve missed my Master’s presence in these beautiful moments. 

And because of this, I find that I might have more in common with Martha than Mary.

The Sisters at Bethany: Luke 10:38-42

As we mentioned on Thursday, By sitting at Jesus’ feet, Mary is signaling her intention to become a teacher herself; and Jesus declares that she is right to do so.[1]   However, if this is the sole intent of this narrative, Mary’s theological education comes at the expense of Martha.[2]  To counter the seeming unfairness towards Martha, Veronica Koperski proffers the theory that it is not Martha’s busyness that is being chastised, but her anxiety.[3]

The weight of this idea falls mostly on the translation of the Greek verb “diakouew” from verse 40.  According to Klaus Hess, in this particular passage, it means “service at a table;” however, this word occurs 34 times in the New Testament and in every use except this one, it implies “service, office, aid, support, distribution (of alms, etc.), office of a deacon.”[4]  In fact, Koperski contends that because of its usage in other New Testament passages, it is “not exclusively associated with table service, and the text gives no indication that a meal is involved.”[5]  In particular, she references a later passage in Luke 22:25-27 were this word expresses “the epitome of Jesus’ mission” and notes that “Jesus does not actually serve a meal, but charges his disciples to adopt the attitude of ‘one who serves.’”[6] Warren Carter asserts this position, noting that

in six of its eight occurrences in Acts diakonia indicates leadership and proclamation on behalf of God or of the church and the gospel.  In two of the six the administration and provision of material relief for those in need are indicated without separation of these tasks from the tasks of leadership and proclamation.  Partnership with others in the acts of ministry pervades all eight texts, as does the sense of ministering as the representative of God or of the church…thus [it] does not designate domestic or culinary activity.[7]

The question then becomes, why in this instance only does this verb refer to waiting tables?  Is it only because its subject is specifically female and could therefore offer no other service?  If this is the case, certainly Jesus’ words that Mary has choose the better portion indicates that becoming his student trumps domestic obligations.  On the other hand, both Carter and Koperski contend that Mary and Martha were involved, at some level, in local church leadership.  Carter posits that Martha’s anxiety stems from the exultant doing of this ministry, while Koperski attributes the worry to her feeling of being pulled away from her service therein, by the disapproval of others.[8]  While both theories certainly place more weight on Martha’s potential ministerial duties and make her seem less like a petulant child, neither can be adequately proven from the text itself. Yet, neither can a simplistic outburst concerning the unfair distribution of domestic duties.  What remains are Jesus’ words that Mary “has chosen the good portion, which will not be taken away from her” (10:42). 

Thus however you read this particular word for service, as domestic in only this one instance or as service for the kingdom, the good portion for which Mary is lauded is: being aware of her Lord’s presence, of abandoning what is culturally expected to spend her time with him, soaking up his presence and his teaching even if it is socially unacceptable.  Because those are the only things that will sustain a servant of any ilk. 

I must encourage you: sit at Jesus’ feet, soak up His presence, and learn from Him through reading God’s Word.  Be prepared to share what you have learned, to freely give what you have freely been given.  And when societal boundaries seem to rise up against what you’re doing, cross them.  Like a rebel who hails from a kingdom where your King delights in eliminating the walls that keep us from Him.    

Enjoying this study?  Here's a link to other articles in this series: The Women Who Knew Jesus

---

[1]Wright, N. T., Bishop of Durham.  “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis.”  Conference paper for the Symposium “Men, Women and the Church,” St John’s College, Durham, September 4 , 2004.   www.ntwrightpage.com/Wright_Women_Service_Church.htm
[2]Veronica Koperski.  “Women and Discipleship in Luke 10:38-42 and Acts 6:1-7: The Literary Context of Luke-Acts.”  A Feminist Companion to Luke.  ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, 161-196.  New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002, page 183.
[3] Ibid, 195.
[4] Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 3 (Grand Rapides: Zondervan, 1986), s.v. “Serve, Deacon, Worship,” by K. Hess.   
[5] Koperski, “Women and Discipleship,” 183.
[6] Ibid, 182.
[7] Carter, Warren. “Getting Martha out of the Kitchen: Luke 10.38-24 Again.”  A Feminist Companion to Luke.  ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, 215-231.  New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.  Originally published in CBQ 56 (1996): 264-280, page 222.
[8]Carter, “Getting Martha Out,” 230; Koperski, “Women and Discipleship,” 185.

Scarring Culture

My mother works with wood.  She is  less carpenter, more artisan, who attends the warmth of her organic medium with the tenderness of, well, a mother.  Her handiwork fills the homes of our family in the form of beds and tables, desks and mantles.  She has asserted, as one who has seen the effects of this mistake, that when sanding a piece, bringing its glow to the surface, turning the wood satin beneath her fingers, that to go against the grain scars the wood.  It leaves the wood marked and sets it apart from the rest of the piece.  Thus the colloquialism, “against the grain” can be taken to mean a scarring of culture, a change that is counter to the status quo.  A way of doing, a way of being, that is revolutionary; and can change the culture in which the action occurs.

So it is with two sisters, in their home in Bethany.  One adhering to the normative cultural practices of her day; the other, flouting them.  And Jesus saying the later has chosen the better way.         

The Sisters at Bethany: Luke 10:38-42

Returning to the text, we find that immediately before Jesus dines at the home of Martha and Mary, 70 disciples have returned.  Jesus, having sent them out to tell of his works and mission, rejoices and offers a prayer of thanksgiving.  Then in answer to a  lawyer’s question, Jesus gives the parable of the Good Samaritan (10:17-37).  The thrust of this parable turns the expected worldview of a Jewish lawyer on its head by insinuating that the law requires one to love God and people, even one’s enemies.  Jesus, in verse 37 then admonishes the lawyer to “go and do likewise.”  The command of “do” insinuating action; which is important when considering that within a few verses it appears that Martha is rebuked for “doing,” where Mary is seemingly lauded for not doing.   Following this teaching, Jesus and his disciples leave their current town and head into Bethany. 

Once in Bethany, Jesus and his disciples are welcomed into the home of Martha.  There is some disagreement between scholars as to whether this particular abode is the location of a house church or merely her home.  (The Greek, οἰκίαν, means house and Luke’s use of the singular, feminine, genitive ending implies that the home is a possession of Martha.[1]  Therefore, if it is the site of a home church, Martha could be considered the leader thereof.)  Whether a house church or not, Martha opens her home to Jesus willingly.  With the Lord and his disciples inside, Martha’s sister, Mary, “sat at the Lord’s feet listening to what he had to say,” while Martha is “distracted with much serving” (10:39-40).  Martha then questions Jesus’ allowance of Mary’s seeming abdication of domestic duties; and Jesus responds to her by saying that Mary has chosen “the good portion which will not be taken away from her” (10:42).

source

This passage has been the crux of generations of debate regarding gender roles within the home and the church; both Mary and Martha having been cast as archetypes for contemplative and service-oriented lives, as well as exemplars of what women are not and are permitted to do within the context of ecclesiastical service, respectively.  (That the NIV renders verse 40 as “distracted by all the preparations that had to be made,” advances an a priori theory of a domestic origin, thereby subtly negating other legitimate catalysts for Martha’s distraction.)  However, most scholars do agree Mary’s reclining at Jesus’ feet is radical for the first century; and it is this behavior that causes Martha’s offense.  Bishop Tom Wright claims that “no doubt [Martha] was cross at being left to do all the work, but the real problem behind that was that Mary had cut clean across one of the most basic social conventions.”[2]  Why?  Because Mary would be sitting at Jesus’ feet in the male part of the house, instead of remaining in the back rooms with the other women.  Bishop Wright likens this behavior to a Western, twenty-first century guest following their host into his or her bedroom at night to sleep there, instead of staying in the guest bedroom made up for that very purpose.  First century Jewish women were generally not permitted in the men’s areas unless they were serving food.  Thus Mary’s positioning herself there warrants the audience’s attention.

By situating herself at Jesus’ feet, Mary is not only flouting her culture, but also asserting herself as a student of Jesus.  Mary would not act thus merely for self-fulfillment, nor simply to soak up her beloved teacher’s presence; instead, Mary is doing this in order than she may be a rabbi (“teacher”) herself.  Bishop Wright references Paul’s relationship with Gamaliel to illustrate this concept; emphasizing that in the first century, learning for the sake of learning was not an occupation entered into by the common person.  By sitting at Jesus’ feet, Mary is signaling her intention to become a teacher herself; and Jesus declares that she is right to do so.[3]      

As he illustrated in the parable of the Good Samaritan, Jesus allowing Mary to sit at his feet as a student and then telling Martha that her sister has indeed chosen the better way, the Lord is showing his followers how his Kingdom is to affect their comfortable ways of living.  In radical and counter-cultural ways.  Those who have been prohibited from learning and teaching now are welcomed as equals with their brethren.  Those who are unclean, as the Samaritan woman and the man in Christ’s parable, are now made equally clean and included in Christ.  Thus, Mary’s theological education does not come at the expense of Martha; rather the allowance of Mary to sit at Jesus’ feet is a liberation for them both.[4]  They are freed from solely domestic contributions to ministerial service that is unparalleled in their day.[5] 

A revelation which will become even more crystalline as we look at the Greek on Tuesday.

Enjoying this study?  Here's a link to other articles in this series:  The Women Who Knew Jesus

---

[1] Warren Carter, “Getting Martha out of the Kitchen: Luke 10.38-24 Again,” in A Feminist Companion to Luke, ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 215-231.  And Veronica Koperski, “Women and Discipleship in Luke,” in A Feminist Companion to Luke, ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, (New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002), 161-196. 

[2] Bishop N.T. Wright, “Women’s Service in the Church: The Biblical Basis,” St John’s College, Durham, September 4 2004.

[3] Wright, “Women’s service in Church,” 2004.

[4] Koperski,Veronica.  “Women and Discipleship in Loke 10:38-42 and Acts 6:1-7: The Literary Context of Luke-Acts.”  A Feminist Companion to Luke.  ed. Amy-Jill Levine with Marianne Blickenstaff, 161-196.  New York: Sheffield Academic Press, 2002.” 183.

[5] Ibid, 195.

The Sisterly Squabble of Do-ers and Be-ers...Or is it?

Mary and Martha, origin

You know them; at least, you think you do.  They’re as oft mentioned as that woman lurking at the end of Proverbs.  Though, unlike her, they were real people.  These two sisters who have been the archetypes for Do-ers and Be-ers since the ink dried on the good doctor’s papyrus.    

                Mary & Martha: the Sister Servants, in Luke10:38-42

Not to be flippant (for this is God’s Word to which we attend), but there have been seasons in which I have heard more about these two sisters, in the context of women’s studies, than I have about Christ Himself.  And I will say, that as a quintessential Be-er, I always felt validated.  Those Martha’s out there needed to take note, stop doing so much.  The Lord Himself has said as much.  It made me feel, well, like I got it.  Haha.  But I have learned that when I feel this way about a passage of scripture, likely I don’t have it.  At all.    

But as I dig into the text, I don’t see two sisters, one the I-can’t-sit-still variety and the other a let’s-stop-and-smell-the-roses type, who are the archetypes against which we modern women should judge ourselves and one another.  When I look at the cultural and historical background of this story, I learn a bit more about who each of these women were; what they might actually have been doing, and why Jesus lauded one over the other.    

I know some of this may sound a little outside the traditional way this story is taught, particularly within the context of women’s studies.  But I think that may only be because that’s how our teachers have learned it, and how their teachers learned it, etc…  And when we look at the texts, dig into the original language, and place all of this against the first century Palestinian and Jewish backdrop, we see a little different picture.
   
For example…

What if I told you that the Greek verb “diakouew” from verse 40 is used 34 times in the New Testament, some of which are in reference to Jesus himself?  You’d probably look quizzically at me; until I mention that translators generally apply the following meanings to this word: “service, office, aid, support, distribution (of alms, etc.), office of a deacon."*  Except in this verse—the only time it is translated thus—translators say it means “service at a table."**  Domestic duties.  Why, when every other usage in the whole of scripture is does not mean that?  We’re going to address that question in our third session.     

For today, read the passage; read what comes immediately before these verses and what comes after.  Recognize that this story is only found in Luke’s gospel.  And like we did for our first reading of the Samaritian woman’s story, write a list of what is in the text; only facts that you can support with the words on the page—no suppositions, no inferences.  And then be prepared to look at what cultural and historical evidence tells us about the world in which these two women lived, and how the definition of one word turned one woman into a waitress for posterity. 

   

Enjoying this study?  Here's a link to other articles in this series: The Women Who Knew Jesus

---

*Colin Brown, ed., New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, vol 3 (Grand Rapides: Zondervan, 1986), s.v. “Serve, Deacon, Worship,” by K. Hess.

**Klaus Hess, "Serve, Deacon, Worship."