Did Jesus Play “Favoritism” for Mary over Martha?

Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her” (Luke 10:41), said Jesus, when Martha “complained to him about her sister, Mary, not helping her. 

Perhaps, this phrase of Jesus to Martha reverberates in the minds and hearts of those who read Luke 10:38-42 or listened to this portion of the Gospel at Mass as it is the Gospel reading for the 16^th Sunday in Ordinary Time on Cycle C.  I have noticed that the above words of Jesus can even elicit emotional responses.

As in the Gospel reading for the 16^th Sunday in Ordinary Time on Cycle C, this Gospel narrative of Luke (10:38-42) echoes the story of Abraham and Sarah providing hospitality to three travelers in his tent (Genesis 18:1-10a), which is the first reading for the 16^th Sunday. 

In the Gospel story, Jesus was a guest to the house of Mary and Martha, while two angels and Lord God in disguise of three travelers, * were the guests to the tent of Abraham and Sarah. 

Martha was the one who greeted him first upon his arrival, as Abraham did to the travelers outside his tent.  In the first reading from Genesis 18:1-10a, it was Abraham, who wasted no time ordering his servant to prepare for the choicest calf and asked his wife to make rolls. In the Gospel reading (Luke 10:38-42), it was Maratha, who was busy serving Jesus.  In the first reading, everyone in Abraham’s tent was busy to serve the guests. On the other hand, in the Gospel story, while Martha kept herself busy serving Jesus, Mary was doing nothing but sitting at his feet, listening to him.  This prompted Martha to complain to Jesus, “Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me” (Luke 10:40).  In response, Jesus said to Martha, “Martha, Martha, you are anxious and worried about many things. There is need of only one thing. Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her” (Luke 10:41). 

When I was teaching this Gospel story, some married women in the class said that they can relate themselves to Maratha in the Gospel story.  They explained that they sometimes have felt “unappreciated” by their husbands and children. They said that they are the ones always running around with house chores, while their husbands and children are not so helpful, wondering why do to not lend their hands more.  Certainly, they identified themselves with Martha, while seeing Mary like their husbands and children. They expressed their frustration that their husbands and children could step up to be more helpful. Obviously, the Gospel narrative struck the chord with these women’s personal life experiences.

In empathizing themselves with Martha, seeing their frustration with not-so-helpful husbands and children in light of Martha’s frustration with Mary, some of them raised this critical question and asked me: Was Jesus playing “favoritism” to Mary over Martha? 

As a scripture teacher, I really like when my students read and reflect the biblical texts in such a way of relating their own personal experiences. This is what a University of Chicago Catholic theologian, David Tracy, calls “mutually critical correlation”, correlating our own lived life experience to relevant Christian texts.  

In response to this question, I could have answered simply with “Yes” or “No” and given a bit of explanations.  However, to maximize the effect of “mutually critical correlation” between their empathizing life experience and the scripture text, I resorted to an application of a Socratic dialogue.  If Jesus were in my position, I am sure that he would do the same, as he was known for answering questions with more questions. My objective for this dialectic method is to encourage my students to apply their empathic imagination to different characters in the scripture narratives to go beyond certain perspectives in interpreting.  This way, they can link their personal empathic imagination to their theological imagination.  An answer to a question like what they asked me can be discerned as a result of this kind of imagination exercises. 

Though many of the students, especially married women, emphasized themselves to frustrated Martha, I asked them to step out of Martha’s shoe and put themselves into Jesus’ shoe in the Gospel narrative.

Now, imagine if you were Jesus in this Gospel story. You have traveled a long way and finally arrived at the house of your close friend, Martha, and her sister, Mary.  As soon as you arrive, Martha greets you and ushers you in. Then, she wastes no time in serving you.  Then, Mary comes and sits at your feet to listen to your story.  As your story unfolds, Mary just listens.  While you are talking, and Mary is listening to you attentively with great interest, Martha comes and complains that she is the only one serving but her sister, Mary is not helping her. Martha tells you that Mary should help her. She also asks you to tell Mary to help her. 

First, how would you feel?  Would you feel annoyed? You had enjoyed speaking to Mary. However, suddenly, Martha interrupted.  

How would you respond to Martha?

Would you tell Martha, “Oh, Martha, you poor thing! OK, I’ll tell Mary to help you” and turn to Mary, telling her, “Hey, Mary, your sister needs your help. Why don’t you help her?” 

Or, would you tell Martha, “Oh, Martha, Martha, why do you have to stress yourself like this? I do not need two of you to serve me. Mary wants to listen to my story. We are having a good time. So, I am not going to ask Mary to leave me now”. 

If you are like me, you probably answer like the latter.  However, I think that your response would be more like the former, if you are more like my students, who thought that Jesus was playing “favoritism” to Mary. 

I think that everyone has his or her own response to this question. This is not about right or wrong. It just reflects how we relate our own lived life experience – how our emotional transference and countertransference with biblical characters, including empathy, are. In this sense, this is a bit of psychoanalytic application in a personally meaningful exegesis. 

Having empathized with Jesus the guest in the Gospel narrative, now, let us zoom in on with the critical question: Was Jesus playing “favoritism”?  As you think of this question, you see examine yourself in Jesus’ shoe in the Gospel story whether you were playing “favoritism” or not. 

If you think that he was playing “favoritism”, then, I invite you to read John 21:15-23, in which Peter asks Jesus, “What about him(John)?”(John 21:21), after being implicated to his martyrdom, upon reinstated by Jesus. Peter must have wondered if Jesus would also tell John about his future martyrdom.  Jesus’ reply to Peter was more like, “I have a plan for John.  If it is different from yours, does it bother you?” 

As Jesus’ plan for John was not martyrdom, while Peter was expected to give his life in Jesus’ plan, was Jesus playing “favoritism” for John over Peter? 

It is a problem with you if Jesus has different plans for believers and followers of his way?  Does it bother you if you have to shed your own blood for the sake of Christ, although your sister or brother does not have to? 

Now, I think that you understand that we should not miss important messages of Jesus in this Gospel narrative as a result of our preoccupation on whether Jesus played “favoritism” or not.

By saying, “Mary has chosen the better part and it will not be taken from her”(Luke 10:42), Jesus wanted to ensure that Mary’s position would not change, even her sister Martha asked. It is rather that Jesus safeguards our respective unique position in the world and in the Church.  Obviously, Mary was more suited to provide hospitality to Jesus by sitting at his feet and listening to his story. On the other hand, Martha was more fit to engage in practical tasks, such as serving.  This fact of each person’s unique role that Jesus protects is also reflected in the corresponding first reading (Genesis 18:1-10a), as Abraham and Sarah were not providing hospitality to their three guests in the same way.  While Abraham was with the guests, his wife, Sarah, was inside the tent, preparing refreshments.  Imagine what it would be like if Sarah had come to where Abraham and the guests were and complained to them about Abraham not helping her.

I also want to invite you to closely read Martha’s complaining statement: Lord, do you not care that my sister has left me by myself to do the serving? Tell her to help me (Luke 10:40).  Italics are mine.

If you pay attention to where I italicized, you notice that Martha’s complaint is quite self-centered. Martha could have wait after Jesus leaves to complain to Mary and ask her to be more helpful to her. It is, in fact, embarrassing to act like Martha, complaining about her own sibling to a guest. If you were a guest, would you like to be asked by the host to tell the host’s family member what to do?

At first, Jesus could have appeared a bit unsympathetic to Martha. As some of my students perceived, Jesus could have seemed to have played “favoritism” for Mary over Martha.  However, as we advance in our practice of “mutually critical correlation” between our own lived life experience to the Gospel narrative, with empathic imagination, and psychoanalytic reflection, in our personal exegesis, we shall reach a conclusion that Jesus was not playing “favoritism”.  He was, in fact, being fair, as he acknowledged and respected different roles that Martha and Mary had to play in providing hospitality to him during his visit. Jesus simply declined to alter this in favor of Martha’s self-centered concern.

The fact that some of my students have wondered if Jesus was playing “favoritism” in the Gospel story tells me that we still have some hung-ups with what the secular society teaches as “equality” as “justice”. This Gospel story about Martha and Mary is a good reminder that God’s justice may be different from what we think as “justice”, especially, in terms of equality and fairness.

To further ponder on this from Luke 10:38-42 on this matter, I invite you to reflect this Gospel story with 1 Corinthians 12, where Paul describes different gifts of the Holy Spirit in the context of one holy apostolic pluralistic Church. Furthermore, you may also want to reflect the Gospel narrative with Francis Cardinal George’s essay, “Why doesn’t God love everyone equally?”, published on February 27, 2011, in the Catholic New World.  In this Cardinal George wrote:

A saint lives in loving intimacy with God, who creates that love in the saint by first loving him or her. Since there are great saints and little saints, God doesn’t love everyone equally. It doesn’t matter that we don’t know why God loves some people more than others, but recognizing this difference reinforces our conviction that everyone is unique and challenges any assertion that everyone is equal, except before the abstract principles of the law. Life, however, is not a dialogue with legal principles. In life, differences abound in our relations to God and to other people. The differences — between the two sexes, among diverse races and cultures, in personal history and desire — make life rich. If we ignore them, we risk living only with ideas, divorced from real people. We become ideologues of “equality.”

Even if God loves each of us differently and unequally, he still loves us all. Thinking of sanctity, we have to ask also about our love for God. Do we all love God equally? Obviously not; but why not? I suppose there are as many answers as there are human creatures, but two reasons not to love God or at least not to love him as he wants to be loved come to mind.

First of all, perhaps our intimacy with God is stymied by fear, especially by fear of punishment. We tend to avoid those we fear; we ignore those who might ask us embarrassing questions, even God. This has been the pattern of human interaction with God ever since Adam and Eve hid from him after their disobedience in the garden. Perhaps, secondly, we resist intimacy with God because we resent losing our autonomy, our imagined self-sufficiency. To love another means he or she has entry into one’s life. To love God means he directs our life in ways we sometimes don’t care to go. Better to keep our distance, loving enough to be safe but not given to considering what God wants in our every thought and action. What makes great saints, however, is the desire to please God in every detail of their lives.

As we mutually and critically correlate our own lived life experience to the Gospel texts, certain emotions are aroused. It can be fear or frustration. Or, it can be both. Then, in our exegesis, we can also experience transference and countertransference with the characters in the biblical narrative we read, reflect, and interpret. When you find yourself hit by strong emotions of fear, frustration, resentment, anguish, and so forth, perhaps, reflecting on the above words of Cardinal George is helpful.

*****

 *See Genesis 18:1 – 19:1, especially in regard to, 18: 1, 10, 13. 17, 19, 20, 26, 33 (Lord God), 18:22, 19:1 (two angels), to know who are these three travelers, whom Abraham and Sarah hosted.

Peter and Paul – the Two Pillars of the Church

This year, the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, June 29, coincided with the Sunday following Corpus Christi Sunday. While Pentecost, which is celebrated on the Sunday before Trinity Sunday, which precedes Corpus Christi Sunday, is regarded as the “birthday” of the Church, Corpus Christi Sunday is about understanding our assembly in the name of Christ to be the Body of Christ, besides our appreciation of the Eucharist, as I discussed in my last blog entry.

Carrying on our focus on the Church from Pentecost to Corpus Christi, and further to the feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, we honor Peter and Paul as the two pillars of the Church. Given their respective unique contributions to the nascent Church, as well-documented by Luke in the Acts of the Apostles, Peter and Paul can be considered as the two foundation pillars of the Church.

However, some people have a problem with viewing Peter and Paul as parallel pillars of the Church, attributing to differences not only in their leadership styles of these great men but also the fact that only Peter was given the key to the Kingdom by Jesus.  So, they find it difficult to see Peter and Paul as the two parallel pillars of the Church. This point is well-taken.

According to the Gospel reading for the feast of Peter and Paul, Matthew 16:13-19, Jesus indicated Peter to be the foundation rock, on which he will build his Church, upon giving the key to the Kingdom of God (Matthew 16:18).  At that time, Paul was not in the scene. He was not even part of the twelve apostles.

In a strict sense, if Peter and Paul were to be the two pillars of the Church, not only that Paul would have received another key, together with Peter, and that both of these men shall be called to be the two pillars of the Church, which Jesus will build. Not to mention, those who have a hard time in viewing Peter and Paul as the two pillars tend to cling to this argument: Jesus called Peter the rock, upon which he will build his Church (Matthew 16:18), but did not call him a pillar of his Church with Paul, or the scripture did not say so.

We have this problem if we interpret the scripture only literally.

In practicing exegesis, we need to transcend the letters of the scriptural text, especially if it is a translated text. We also have to understand that what the scriptures are intended to convey to us is far more than what the human languages can communicate. So, this transcending attitude of exegesis is based on our acknowledgement of the limitations of the human languages, especially written languages.

This is why many biblical concepts are so loaded.

For example, if you were so rigid about following only the letters of the scripture, you sure would have a problem with Jesus’ own statements about himself. On one occasion, he says he is the bread of life that we are to eat (John 6:51). But, on another occasion, we are to eat his flesh for the same purpose (John 6:55-56).

If we could interpret the scriptures only literally, then, we would have a trouble in understanding what Jesus meant by John 6:51 and 6:55-56, inviting us to eat the bread of life and the flesh of Jesus himself in the same speech.  In John 6:51, Jesus says that he is the living bread on one hand, then, says that the living bread is his flesh. We wonder how bread and flesh can be the same. And, those who interpret the scripture only literally tend to get stuck with this kind of biblical expression.

Bread and flesh are different substance.　But, the flesh of Jesus that we are invited to eat for eternal life and the life in Christ comes in the physical form of unleavened bread. It is bread physically and the flesh of Christ substantially beyond the level of the human perception and cognition, we eat bread of life and the flesh of Christ with the same object.

Of course, to make sense out of these statements of Jesus, we must understand transubstantiation – the imperceptible substance of the bread and wine that Jesus uses as a metaphor for his body and blood will become the real body and blood of Christ for us to eat and drink, as he commanded, without looking and tasting like the human flesh and blood. And, there is no description of transubstantiation in the scriptures. Therefore, the concept of transubstantiation is a result of active exegesis.

This being said, through active exegesis, depending on how we see the Church, Peter and Paul can be understood as the two pillars of the Church, despite that these men became part of the Church at different times and with different qualities.  Just because anywhere in the scriptures it says that Peter and Paul are the two pillars of the Church, it does not preclude us from considering these great men of faith to be the two pillars of the Church.

By the same token, we can also understand that husband and wife are the two pillars of a family. As Peter and Paul are different, husband and wife are different in many aspects. Nevertheless, given a structural view that I apply in practicing a family therapy, the essential roles that husband and wife plays in a family echoes the founding roles both Peter and Paul played in the early Church.

It was Peter, who laid a part of the foundation of the Church, primarily based in Jerusalem, as the bedrock of the Church. On the other hand, Paul also laid another part of the foundation of the Church as the very first missionary leader, extending the bedrock of the Church beyond Jerusalem, beyond Judea, and beyond where the Jews are. 

Peter and Paul had different gifts. And, their different leadership roles in laying foundation of the Church are also like husband and wife, who are different and whose gifts are different, can lay the foundation of a family, through their unique roles.  God bestow different gifts in husband and wife, as He did to Peter and Paul. And, God expect husband and wife play different roles, yet, help one another and coordinate each other’s unique roles in laying the foundation of a family, in which they are the two pillars.

I am sure that none of those who read this blog will argue that we cannot compare Peter and Paul to husband and wife, because both Peter and Paul are men – but husband and wife are man and woman. If this were a problem, then, it would be a similar or even the same kind of problem that I mentioned – inability to transcend the bounds of letters in the scripture text in exegesis.