The Lectionary and Scripture Interpretation for Ordinary Time
Click here for more information.
Overview and Connections
The lectionary pairs a story of ancient hospitality with the very familiar story of Martha and Mary. In so doing, it seems to put the emphasis on the importance of hospitality. And yet, Jesus seems to suggest that there is more to it than that.
Genesis 18:1-10a
The Genesis narrative begins very broadly but quickly centers on the figure of Abram/Abraham, the father of the Jewish people. A brief overview:
- Chp 12 Abram migrates to Canaan with Lot.
- In chp 13 they part company.
- In chp 14 Lot is captured and Abram rescues him.
- In chp 15 God makes a covenant with Abram to give him land and descendants.
- Ishmael is born in chp 16.
- In chp 17 God institutes circumcision while also changing Abram’s name to Abraham and reaffirming the covenant from chp 15.
Story-telling in oral cultures relies heavily on form. Forms make it easy for the storyteller to memorize the story and also for the listeners to follow the narrative. One classic storyline in the mid-East: heavenly beings come to a humble home, receive hospitality, and then leave a reward.
In v1, God appears to Abraham, and then in v2, three men appear. Later in the chapter, we’ll see these men depart for the city of Sodom in v16. In v22, “the men” leave Abraham, who remains standing before the LORD. In 19:1, it says, “The two angels reached Sodom.” To complicate things, sometimes the men are addressed in the singular, other times in the plural (ie v2).
Traditional Jewish interpretation understands the three men as angels and the appearance of God in v1 as separate from the three men. This does leave open a question as to why only two angels arrive in Sodom. Jewish interpretation further teaches that Abraham was in the middle of having an experience of God’s presence, which he broke off in order to provide hospitality to the angels, and this is considered exemplary behavior.
Subsequent Christian interpretation sees the three men as prefiguring the Trinity and the meal as foreshadowing the Eucharist. It also sees the promise of Isaac’s miraculous birth as prefiguring Christ’s birth.
You never knew when you might need hospitality to be returned to you in ancient nomadic cultures, which was why you readily gave it to others. But hospitality had a price: the traveler would bring news, and he was expected to be entertaining in the sharing of it. Hebrews 13:2 is a direct reference to this story.
Anyone encountered in the desert was a potential enemy. The culture of hospitality oriented people to begin by treating potential enemies with honor. Abraham is portrayed in this story as the perfect host. That said, a proper guest would never bring up the host’s wife. This would be seen as a direct challenge to Abraham’s authority. By asking about Sarah, the guests have put themselves in a situation where Abraham could have killed them right then and there and be justified in doing so. But Abraham responds positively. This part of the story is almost like a parable where there is an unexpected twist in conventional norms.
God comes into our lives in unexpected ways. How have you shown hospitality to others and, in so doing, possibly entertained angels?
Colossians 1:24-28
The community in the city of Colossae is being tempted by someone preaching practices that the author considers superfluous to the gospel. In 1:9-14, the hope seems to be that if the community comes back to the joy experienced in baptism, they will see the futility of the strongly ascetic measures promoted by false teachers. Last week’s reading referred to Christ as an ikon of God.
Today’s reading grapples with the problem of suffering. Why do we suffer, and is there any value in it? Paul seems to say yes, but how does that work? It is far too easy to dismiss another’s suffering with trite words. In fact, liberation theology tells us that doing so has historically been a way for those in power to control the weak and the poor.
One of the most contentious statements in this passage is when Paul says, “I fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ.” Is Paul suggesting that Jesus’ passion was somehow incomplete? As though we must do something to supplement that work? The Greek word rendered “fill up” suggests a reciprocal or corresponding completion. The word rendered “afflictions” means pressure, especially internal pressure that causes someone to feel confined or restricted and without options. This word is never used of Jesus’ passion, but it is frequently used of all the hardships around proclaiming the gospel and bringing about the kingdom.
Paul was not saying that Christ’s passion lacked anything to bring us into right relationship with God. Rather, Paul saw his own suffering, joined to Christ’s suffering, as having meaning and merit. What Paul suffered was all somehow a necessary part of bringing in the kingdom.
In v25 Paul calls himself a “minister,” which is the Greek word diakonos. This was a technical term in the early church for all Christian service and should not be read as restricted to ordained or any type of formal ministry. We are all diakonos.
What is the “mystery” Paul speaks of in v26? The Synoptic gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) all use this word “mystery” once. The disciples asked Jesus why he used parables, and he replied, “so you may know the mysteries of the kingdom.” Paul was fond of this word. In classical Greek, the word meant something hidden and secret. Often, the word was used of religious secrets only revealed to those initiated in the religion.
Paul clarifies the mystery in v27: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” And he specifically ties it to the Gentiles. Not only is the mystery that God lives within us, but that this is accessible to everyone: Jews and Gentiles alike. There is a universal access to God.
V28 speaks of perfection in the NAB, which other translations render as maturity. The Greek word carries the idea of being complete, mature, and fully grown. It’s the same word as Jesus used in Matthew 5:48: “be perfect as your father in heaven is perfect.” We are and will always be loved sinners. We will always make mistakes, and we should never seek perfection as the lack of them. True maturity is growing secure in one’s true identity: beloved children of God.
Consider your own sufferings. Can you see any redeeming value in them? Can you find in them any way that they have advanced the coming of the kingdom?
Luke 10:38-42
On the heels of last week’s very familiar story of the “Good” Samaritan, today we get the equally familiar story of Mary and Martha.
We all know this story, of course. Mary sits at the feet of Jesus in rapt devotion. Martha, slaving away in a hot kitchen, gets pissed, and complains to Jesus. And Jesus sort of puts her in her place.
I have always struggled with this story. To me, it feels like Jesus didn’t listen to Martha’s concerns very compassionately, and that is my own baggage. We all bring such baggage to scripture, and it influences our understandings of scripture. This is a critical thing to remember and be aware of.
How are we supposed to understand this story? To start, we can go back to the church father Origin, who died in 253AD. Origin interpreted this story as activity vs contemplation. Mary was the model contemplative; Martha was the active one. And, in this interpretation, you must have both, but contemplative life is better. This interpretation had a profound influence on the church as monastic orders developed, particularly for women.
But there are unanswered questions:
- Why doesn’t Martha confront Mary directly? Were they really too wimpy to work things out for themselves?
- Why doesn’t Mary pipe up in Martha and Jesus’ conversation?
- Why doesn’t Jesus invite Martha to take a break and rest next to Mary, especially if contemplation is so prized?
- What if Martha had been doing something in the story beyond what is considered “woman’s work” – would the historical interpretation have been different? Are stereotypes at work in this interpretation?
- How much has the traditional interpretation been used to subjugate women?
There are many such questions that leave me dissatisfied. To explore today’s story I will take a slightly different approach than usual. I’ll start with a detailed exegesis, which is a foundational step: what does the text actually say, and what does it not actually say? And then I will share a novel theory of interpretation for this passage. Not only will this approach provide a deeper understanding of this familiar passage, but it will also provide a useful model for how to study and interpret scripture.
Exegesis – what does the text actually say?
The passage begins in v38 where we see a large crowd following Jesus on the journey, but Jesus turns off the road and goes to pay a visit to Martha. Jesus appears to be alone. Martha welcomes him – that word is translated elsewhere as received – Martha received him. This ties us back to earlier in the chapter where Jesus sent out the 70 and talked about how they might be received or not received.
In v39 we see that Martha has a sister who sat beside the Lord at his feet, listening to him speak. This was the posture of a disciple and an acknowledgment of the teacher’s authority. In the Greek, “she sat” is in the imperfect tense, the basic idea of which is continued action in the past; something that happened in the past more than once. There’s another tense that says something happened in the past more than once and is still happening, but this is not that.
There’s also an important conjunction in the Greek text that doesn’t make its way into most, if any, translations – a word which is usually translated “and” or “also.” If we rendered v38 more literally, it might say, “Mary had, in the past on a number of occasions, also sat at Jesus’ feet. The previous verse introduced us to Martha who had a sister. The implication is that this sister also sat at Jesus’ feet. Mary and Martha had, in the past, both taken the posture of disciples, listening to Jesus.
In v40 we see that Martha is burdened with much serving, which is the Greek word diakone. Everywhere in the New Testament that this word appears, it carries a technical meaning of Christian service. It’s a loaded term that means far more than being a waitress.
Martha is burdened with Christian service; maybe she has a problem saying no, and there’s just too much to do. And Mary has left her: “Do you not care that my sister has left me?!” The verb tense there is that it’s something which happened in the past – Mary left in the past. And she left Martha to do all the Christian service by herself. Martha says to Jesus – isn’t that concerning to you? Don’t you care? And I think Martha was the type of woman that I was trained to be: don’t complain about something unless you have a solution: tell her to help me.
V41 is Jesus’ reply. First, he notices that she’s anxious and worried. In chp 12, Jesus will have something to say about anxiety and worry. But here he simply notices it. The word worried could also be translated as “troubled.” You’re troubled, and that’s making you anxious.
In v42, Jesus says that Mary has chosen the “better” part. The King James used this translation, and it has stuck. For us, it indicates a hierarchy of good, better, and best. The actual Greek word just means “good” and that’s how it’s translated everywhere else in the New Testament. Think “good gifts,” or a “good person.” Mary has chosen what’s good, and it will not be taken from her. Jesus says, I’m not going to intervene as you’ve requested.
Exegesis – what the text does not say
We have heard this story so many times, and it is generally colored by its own history of interpretation. Most of us will assume many things about it that are not actually stated in the text. Let’s take a moment to list the things that are not explicitly stated in the text, as well as assumptions based on traditional interpretations:
- The setting is a crowded house. Actually, they may not even be inside. Maybe Jesus and Martha are taking a walk outdoors in the garden.
- There was a huge group demanding lunch.
- Martha was preparing a meal.
- Martha did not also sit at Jesus’ feet.
- Mary was present.
- Mary’s activity was inherently better than Martha’s.
A new interpretation
What I want to offer now is an alternate interpretation. I do not want to imply that Origin was wrong in his interpretation or that the idea of the active life vs the contemplative life is not without value. But I find this alternate theory a compelling one, especially for women.
The first conclusion we might draw from our exegesis is that Martha and Mary both sat at Jesus’ feet and were disciples of Jesus. We might even say they were both contemplatives in that sense of gazing at Jesus. In this interpretation, there need be no binary contrast of active and contemplative living.
We might theorize that Mary has pursued an itinerant ministry, traveling around. In v40, Martha says that Mary left sometime in the past. Perhaps Mary was part of the 70 that Jesus sent out earlier in this chapter. For a woman to engage in itinerant ministry would have bordered on scandalous, which might explain Martha’s upset. It also helps explains why Martha isn’t confronting Mary directly – she’s not there.
We might further theorize that Martha has chosen a home-based ministry. We can imagine that she has stayed in her home village ministering to the poor. And, as Jesus said elsewhere, “the poor you always have with you.” Taking care of the poor is never-ending and can be overwhelming, hence Martha’s troubled spirit. Martha wants her sister Mary to serve in the same way: stay at home where it’s respectable, and help me out here. Martha is sending that message to Mary via Jesus: next time you see my sister in the crowd, tell her to get herself back home where she belongs.
I think it’s important to state that Jesus does indeed notice Martha and listens to her concerns. But Jesus also says that Mary’s choice of service – an itinerant ministry – is no less valid than Martha’s choice of serving the poor in her village. We might think here of Paul speaking of many gifts but one spirit (see 1 Corinthians 12). We all have a unique call, and none is more important than the other. Notice also that Jesus does not say Martha should give up her form of service. There is a need for the multiplicity of gifts in the community.
Application
While we could draw many applications from this story, I want to highlight one in particular. I think, at its heart, this is a story about prayer. Martha’s story starts with a contemplative, loving gaze on Christ, a gaze that moves her into service. In this service, she encounters a problem which she brings to prayer: she seeks out Jesus and asks him to intervene. This is why I like to imagine the beginning of this story as Jesus and Martha taking a walk, on which she renews her contemplative gaze, while also sharing intimately the challenges and frustrations of the service into which she has been led.
Jesus’ response is to acknowledge exactly where Martha is, to give it value and meaning. Ultimately, Jesus says no to Martha’s prayer, as he will sometimes respond to us. But the aim of prayer is not to obtain a “yes;” the aim is to spend time communing with the Beloved. To love and be loved, and to allow Jesus to reorient our priorities and concerns in the greater context of the kingdom work.
I am indebted to the work of Mary Stromer Hanson and her book The New Perspective on Mary and Martha: Do Not Preach Mary and Martha Again Until You Read This! I used her work as a starting point for my own exegesis, and I have refined her conclusions based on my own study. As such, I am not sure where her work ends and mine begins.
Copyrights and source information
© 2025 Kelly Sollinger