03.08. The One Thing Needful

The One Thing Needful

Luke 10:41-42.

Every lover of the word of God has a special interest in the beautiful passages of the Gospels wherein are recorded the visits of our Lord to Bethany and the home of Lazarus, Martha and Mary whom he is specially said to have loved. It appears that in the closing days of his ministry, when the dark clouds were gathering, our Master often found comfort and consolation in the house of his devoted friends. The character of the sisters is so wonderfully and consistently drawn that the narratives are favorites with us all.

We deal now with one incident recorded alone by Luke. Martha received Jesus into her house; Mary "also sat at the Lord’s feet, and heard his word." Martha was "cumbered (literally distracted) with much serving," and came to Jesus to complain about the neglect of her sister. In her excited state, she not only condemned Mary’s alleged unfairness but even reflected upon the Lord Himself. Moffatt’s rendering is graphic: "Lord, is it all one to you that my sister has left me to do all the work alone? Come, tell her to lend me a hand." This was presumptuous language to use to the Master, and ordinarily Martha would not have been so peevish. It is the tender and yet reproving answer of Jesus which now engages our attention. There is no essential difference between the texts of our English and Revised Versions and the American Standard Revised Version.

"But the Lord answered and said onto her, Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things: but one thing is needful: for Mary hath chosen the good part, which shall not he taken away from her" (Luke 10:41-42).

Types of character.

Difference of opinion still exists as to the comparative worthiness of the characters of Martha and of Mary. Each has so many admirable points, and each so appeals to people of different temperaments, that considerable opposition might be aroused by a criticism of either. It is Martha, of course, who is usually criticised in our addresses; and almost invariably some hearer--probably, some sister--is roused to defend the busy housewife of Bethany. The defence may be necessary in some cases where undue depreciation is made, but nothing is more certain than that our Lord himself gently reproved Martha and commended Mary as having chosen the good part which should never be taken away from her. All interpretations or estimates which lose sight of this essential thing are to be shunned.

We do not unduly reflect upon the world’s Marthas when we point out that their characters are defective:

Frequently the contrasted characters of the sisters have been made basis of an estimate of the comparative values of lives of activity and contemplation. Thus J. E. Macfadyen writes: "Martha and Mary are sisters, and their virtues are sister virtues- Martha, the symbol of strenuous energy, Mary, the pattern of sweet contemplation. In the kingdom of God there is a place for both." There is truth in this, but the antithesis can be strained, and it is often strained in such a way as to be unfair both to Martha and to Mary. We do not know that Martha always neglected meditation and contemplation, and we are certain that Mary cannot be proven to have been merely contemplative. She was not lazy and neglectful of duty. Had she been so, were there the slightest hint of it on this occasion, our Lord would not have praised her as he did. Luke by the use of the word "also" (Mary "also sat at the Lord’s feet") shows that Mary received the Lord as well as sat at his feet. Then, whereas distracted Martha was concerned about the credit of the house and special dishes to suit so honored a guest, Mary manifested a true appreciation of the Master and his wishes by also sitting and drinking in his word. He was the real host at a heavenly feast, while Martha’s thoughts centred on her duties as hostess at an earthly dinner. As an extreme case of what some read into the contrasted characters the following may be noted. Macaulay, comparing Naples and Rome, the former where religion is accessory to civil business, the latter a city of priests, writes: "A poet might introduce Naples as Martha, and Rome as ’Mary.’ A Catholic may think Mary’s the better employment, but even a Catholic, much more a Protestant, would prefer the table of Martha." The wrong in this is not the preference for Naples, but the gratuitous assumption that the alleged position of Naples is well typified by Martha and that of Rome by Mary! The few, and the one.

It is chiefly because of a variant reading in the manuscripts that this passage comes into our studies of ambiguous texts. Our Revised Version puts in the margin a reading which has the support of some of the very best Greek manuscripts, and which seems to be greatly gaining in favor with scholars, viz.: "But few things are needful, or one." It is now generally assumed, rather than proven, that the allusion in the "few things" is to such dishes as Martha was busily preparing, and it is commonly taken for granted that the "one" also refers to a dish at table. One writer puts it thus: "Martha, it appears, then designed a meal on the grand scale--one of ’many dishes’-in order to do honor to Christ. In this she found her programme larger than her means to achieve it, and it was this that caused the ’distraction’ and led to the display of pique against Mary. And the whole point of our Lord’s answer was to defend Martha against herself. He was content with one dish." Now, we should not deny that this view yields some sense, but it is a great descent from the ordinary interpretation. We believe that our Lord could have inculcated the lesson of "plain living and high thinking," but not that that is what is urged here.

It should be clear to any reader that the marginal reading does not demand any more than the common text the view that the "one" refers to a dish at table. The "many things" which Martha was said to be worrying about probably included the elaborate dinner courses and dishes; and the "few things" may also refer to these. If so, the sense of the reading "But few things are needful, or one" is likely to be that expressed by Dr. A. B. Bruce: "There is need of few things (material); then, with a pause, or rather of one thing (spiritual). Thus Jesus passes, as was his wont, easily and swiftly, from the natural to the spiritual."

We feel compelled to agree with F. W. Farrar that "the context should sufficiently have excluded the very bald, commonplace and unspiritual meaning which has been attached to this verse--that only one dish was requisite." Rather, the "one thing needful" was "the good part" which Mary chose and which could not be taken away.

What was Mary’s "good part"?

It has often been noted that our Lord does not explain what "the good part" is. Various excellent things have been enumerated in attempts at solution. Probably the best way of approach is that given in the Expositor’s Bible: "Can we not find the truest interpretation in the Lord’s own words? We think we may, for in the Sermon on the Mount we have an exact parallel to the narrative. He finds people burdened, anxious about the things of this life, wearying themselves with the interminable questions, ’What shall we eat? and What shall we drink?’ as if life had no quest higher and vaster than these. And Jesus rebukes this spirit of anxiety, exorcising it by an appeal to the lilies and the grass of the field; and summing up his condemnation of anxiety, he adds the injunction, ’Seek ye his kingdom, and these things shall he added unto you.’ Here, again, we have the ’many things’ of human care and strife contrasted with the ’one thing’ which is of supremest moment. First, the kingdom, this in the mind of Jesus was the ’summum bonum,’ the highest good of man, compared with which the ’many things’ for which men strive and toil are but the dust of the balances."

We may also quote J. E. Macfadyen’s comment: Jesus "does not tell us, but he shows us. One thing is needful. Look at Mary, and you will see it. There it is! or rather, there she is! for Mary is that thing incarnate. Sitting at the Master’s feet, and hanging wistfully upon his every word, she is an immortal illustration of the truth which Jesus would bring home to the restless Martha, and to all those eager, strenuous spirits of which Martha is the type."

Readers of Moffatt’s translation will have noted that his rendering is very different: "The Lord answered her, ’Martha, Martha, Mary has chosen the best dish, and she is not to be dragged away from it." This means simply that Moffatt reconstructs the text and follows quite different (and inferior) manuscripts, from those generally followed. The word for "part" in our text is "merida," which may be used of a "portion" of a meal. Moffatt of course does not here mean "dish" literally. His note is: "I translate ’merida’ by ’dish,’ to bring out the point and play of the saying. Jesus means that Mary has chosen well in selecting the nourishment of his teaching."

Mary put first things first. The quiet spirit of love and meditation, the desire for heavenly communion, the drinking in of the word and spirit of Jesus himself, the receiving of spiritual nourishment from him--these are far ahead of the bustling activity due to a thought that to satisfy Jesus’ physical needs could be more pleasing to him than to sit at his feet as a humble and adoring disciples G. A. Studdert Kennedy has put in verse in appropriate prayer: