The Real Meaning of the Story of Mary and Martha (Luke 10:38-42)

I think the story of Mary and Martha, where Jesus is at their house and Martha is upset that Mary is not being more helpful, has probably caused more frustration than maybe any of the Messiah's words. His statement in Luke 10:41-42 "Martha, Martha, you are upset and worried about many things - but only one thing is needed. Mary has chosen what is better, and it will not be taken from her," has been misunderstood as a criticism of Martha worrying about a meal. We've misunderstood some things in this story, and this post will shed light onto what was actually happening and what was meant in this part of Scripture.

Who were Mary and Martha? 

They were sisters who were both devoted followers of the Messiah during his ministry. The Bible speaks highly of the faith of each of them, and says that Jesus loved them both (John 11:5). They were from Bethany, and they hosted Jesus in their home. Their brother was Lazarus - who was raised from the dead by the Messiah. We see Mary and Martha in the Bible in Luke 10, John 11, and John 12.

The story of the confrontation between Martha and the Savior about Mary's lack of help is found in Luke 10:38-42.

We are told the story goes like this...

Mary and Martha were followers of the Messiah, and they were hosting him and many of his Disciples in their home. While Jesus was waiting on lunch to be served, he began teaching those who were there. Martha was hard at work in the kitchen, preparing an elaborate meal. But her sister Mary sat down to listen to the words the Messiah spoke instead of helping with the food or setting the table. Martha felt annoyed that she was stuck doing all the hospitality work for this large group of people and became upset...and then Jesus reprimands her. He tells her she's making too much food and losing sight of what's most important. He says that Mary made the wiser choice by not helping in the kitchen.

Over and over I have heard that story used to reprimand women for the work they do in providing nourishment to others. It's also used to shush women if they raise any qualms about needing help with making dinner or church kitchen responsibilities. Don't complain, you're the one choosing the less important thing.

Jesus told Martha that "only one thing is required." I've heard many times from the pulpit and Bible studies that this reprimand was because Martha was making too many separate dishes, when she should have just made one simple thing so that she would have had time to come listen herself while the soup simmered or whatever.

I actually remember being in the Christ for the Nations bookstore and seeing a cookbook called something like, "Only One Thing is Needed." It was inspired by the words of the Messiah and filled with recipes for casseroles, stews, and other one-dish meals.

I probably don't have to tell you how much frustration, shame, guilt, and annoyance this interpretation of the notorious Mary/Martha story has caused millions of women. Throughout history women have been given the workload of feeding, not just their families, but relatives, neighbors, coworkers, and church members. They are tasked with figuring out what picky eaters will eat and feeding them multiple times a day. They are called on to feed hundreds of people at funerals and other church functions. They are expected to take meals to new mothers, the elderly, the sick, and the bereaved. If there's an office party that food needs made for, who prepares it is mostly decided not by their position in the company, but by gender. Moms step up to feed the basketball team after games. Women around the world cook for dozens of people to make family reunions possible and make meals to celebrate birthdays and countless occasions. They do this work heroically, with limited budgets, accounting for dietary restrictions and preferences, limited ingredient availability, and often on short notice. This work typically goes unappreciated, their work not valued or noticed, and is almost always done without pay. It's rare for men to pitch in their share of cooking and clean up at events like this. While many women do this work joyfully, it is still work, and I don't know anyone who would prefer kitchen duty to listening to the Messiah speak.

No one wants to be Martha in this story, doing the work while missing out on what's better. Plenty of women wish they had more time for Bible study or hearing the words of Jesus...but who is going to feed everyone? The simple reality is that most people cannot afford take-out or convenience foods every night...to say nothing of the significant cost of professional catering for large events. Even if you are able to outsource this kind of work, it just puts someone else in the position of having to do the cooking when they could be doing something else. And now Martha is getting in trouble (from Jesus himself, no less) because she was taking too much time to cook for everyone?! How fair is that?

I've struggled for years to understand this story. Surely the point of this story is not to manage your time better or you'll get into trouble? The point can't be that making meals is a bad thing. The point can't be that if you say that you want help then you're doing something wrong. Surely Jesus, who so often saw and recognized the needs of women and always treated them with kindness, wasn't mad at a woman working hard to provide a meal for him and his followers?

In fact, this whole incident is quite brief and much of what we've talked about has been assumed, not actually taken from the word of God. Luke 10:38-42 is limited to these words:

Now it happened as they went that he entered a certain village; and a woman named Martha welcomed him into her house. And she had a sister called Mary, who sat at Jesus' feet and heard his word. But Martha was distracted with much serving, and she approached him and said, "Don't you care that my sister has left me to serve alone? Tell her to help me." And Jesus answered and said to her, "Martha, Martha, you are worried and troubled about many things. But one thing is needed, Mary has chosen the good part, which will not be taken away from her."

Did you catch that there's no mention of cooking a meal here? Martha was busy serving. The Bible does not say that she was busy with serving food to the Messiah. It says she was busy serving. Big difference.

The word used for serving in Luke 10:40 when it says that Martha was busy serving is diakonia. This is usually translated to mean:

1. service, ministering, especially of those who execute the commands of others

2. of those who by the command of God proclaim and promote religion among men

3. the ministration of those who render to others the offices of Christian affection, especially those who help meet need by either collecting or distributing of charities

4. the office of deacon in the church

5. the service of those who prepare and present food

We can see from this definition, this word is rarely used to mean preparing food. Given the context of the definition, even if food is being talked about it's more likely to mean cooking for a huge crowd for charity reasons, and not so much for a dinner party in a home setting.

Just to demonstrate that diakonia is rarely used in the context of cooking and serving a meal at home, we see it translated otherwise in these places:

But we will give ourselves continually to prayer, and to the ministry of the word. -Acts 6:4

His purpose was to equip God's people for the work of serving and building up the body of Messiah. -Ephesians 4:12

Barnabas and Saul returned from Jerusalem when they had fulfilled their ministry. -Acts 12:25

God gave us the ministry of reconciliation. -2 Corinthians 5:18

I know your works, your charity, and service, and faith. -Revelation 2:19

Given verses like these, and that Paul frequently used this word to describe his ministry, it seems unreasonable to assume that the service Martha was doing was serving one meal at home. The way Martha describes Mary's actions further supports this understanding of the verse. When Martha says that Mary has left her she uses the word kataleipo, which means forsaken. If this passage was truly about Martha wanting help with dinner, I doubt she would have chosen such a strong term to describe Mary's slipping away for a few minutes to hear the Messiah speak.

It's most likely that what Martha was doing was running some sort of ministry. Maybe she was caring for orphaned children or lepers. Perhaps she had been assigned charity tasks by a religious leader in her community. She may have been doing deacon work (yes, the New Testament mentions several women as deacons). She could have been working on an outreach project to share good news within or outside of her community. Or she could have been working on collecting and distributing charity to the poor or unwell.

Many scholars believe that Mary and Martha (as well as their brother Lazarus) were part of the Essenes - a religious sect of their day. The Essenes were known for charity work and did much caring for the sick and providing for the poor. So that would certainly fit with the idea that Martha was doing ministry work instead of sitting at the Messiah's feet.

This is why Martha takes her complaint up with the Messiah, and not her sister. If this was about putting a meal on the table, she likely would have told Mary that she needed help. But instead Martha went to Jesus and asked, "Don't you care that my sister has forsaken me to do this work by myself?" I think that was her way of saying, "I am doing all this work for you, and if you cared then you would send someone to help me." She's not talking about setting the table or dishing up the food. She's not talking about needing a hand for a few minutes with clean up. She's talking about significant ministry projects.

And we should note that the Messiah is not upset with Martha! Most of grew up believing that his "Martha, Martha" statement was paired with an eyeroll or came out of frustration. We think of the famous, "Marcia, Marcia, Marcia," line from The Brady Bunch and think of someone who has lost their patience with this person. But that's not the case here. Instead of belittling Martha for her choices (no matter if that's making a meal or running a ministry), Jesus speaks tenderly to her. His repetition of her name was said out of concern or empathy, which fits with what he says next, "You are anxious and worried." He's not making fun of her. He's not criticizing her. He's empathizing with how she feels. He's showing her that he does care.

And what Mary was doing was not shirking practical work so that she could do what she wanted - however spiritual that was. I used to picture Mary's actions as selfish. I would picture the busyness of my grandma's kitchen when she was making a meal for her large family - meat need to be sliced, gravy made, the potatoes mashed, vegetables chopped, water poured, the table set - and it would seem like rather than helping her God wanted me to go sit down and read my Bible? Wouldn't that be unkind of me to leave my grandma with all that work? Wasn't it unkind of Mary to expect Martha to serve her along with everyone else they had in their home?

But that is entirely the wrong picture to have about Mary and Martha!

We should also note the wording in Luke 10:39, that says Mary was sitting at the feet of the Messiah. This is not necessarily a reflection of her physical posture (though it could have been). Sitting at the feet was a phrase that was used to describe someone learning from a teacher and being their disciple. That's significant because many have taught and believed that women can't be disciples, in direct contrast to what Scripture teaches and demonstrates. This information also changes the narrative from a picture of Mary sitting and listening to Jesus for an hour or so while Martha cooked, to an ongoing habit in their lives. 

Luke 10:38 says that the sisters "opened their home" to the Messiah. It does not tell us if that was for one day or many. In the traditional rendering of the story, it's easy to assume that it was for one meal or one evening. But there's no reason to think it couldn't have been for a longer period of time. That would mean this wasn't about the logistics of one meal. Days or weeks could have passed where Mary was being discipled by Yahusha, while Martha was continuing on with the ministry by herself.

This gives us perspective on where Martha was coming from when she went to the Messiah. Don't you care that I'm stuck doing all this work for you by myself? This was not about the practical logistics of one meal, but likely an ongoing situation where Martha saw the needs in her community, and wasn't sure how they could be met without her. She was working to help people, and she wrongly believed that she couldn't stop to listen to the words of the Messiah or to grow in relationship with him. Like Peter when he walked on water, she wound up focusing on the storm around her and not listening to the Messiah's words. We see similar mindsets today when people believe that there is too much work to be done to pause and worship on the Sabbath day, or when our focus is on doing good deeds ahead of spending time with YHWH. 

Yes, good works are an important part of our faith. As James says, "Faith without works is dead." What we do is important. But the Bible also teaches that hearing Scripture is what equips us to do those good deeds. If we do not spend time on our relationship with the Messiah, we will not be equipped and our works will not have the same impact. And, like Martha, it will often leave us feeling anxious and perhaps not cared about by God.

The story of Mary and Martha is in no way a reprimand to the millions of women who spend more time in the kitchen than they would prefer. And it's certainly not a prohibition against serving side dishes. Jesus was not mad at Martha, but had compassion for the worry that she dealt with from not pausing to be with him. This story is a reminder that the weight of the world does not fall on our shoulders. It's a reminder that a lifestyle of time spent in Scripture, prayer, and worship is foundational to good works. It's a permission slip to prioritize your relationship with the Messiah above getting things done in his name.

Related posts on women in the Bible:
Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31
The Significance of Sarah in Scripture
A Woman of Valor

What the Bible Says about Rape and Sexual Assault

As the title says, this post talks about rape. I do my best to not be unnecessarily graphic, but obviously this is a sensitive topic for many. Please use caution and only delve in when you are emotionally in a good place to do so. If you have been assaulted, I hope you know that God's heart aches for what you've gone through.

This post talks about what the Bible says about rape. My hope is that this will clear up some incorrect assumptions that have been made about Scripture on this topic, and that we will be better able to see the character and love of God even through this overview. Every once in a while I hear from someone that suggests that honor-killings are part of the Old Testament, or that girls who were raped were stoned to death, and I face palm. NO. This is not the Word of God. We will look at what the Bible actually says about sexual assault, and we will see God's justice in that. We will also see that many of the notorious "rape laws" of Deuteronomy 22 aren't about rape, but focus on violations in marriage.

Who was raped in the Bible?

Some of the women raped in the Bible include Dinah and Tamar. Dinah was the daughter of Jacob and Leah. Her brothers Simeon and Levi were so angry about how she had been violated, that they wound up killing all the males in the town that the perpetrator was prince of (Genesis 34). Tamar was a princess of Israel as a of daughter of King David, and his wife Maacah. She was raped by her half-brother Amnon, after her father had unknowingly sent her into a dangerous situation. Two years later, Tamar's brother Absalom had the perpetrator killed (2 Samuel 13). Judges 19 records an unnamed woman being brutally gang raped and murdered. It's also possible that Sarah endured similar violation at the hands of pharaoh.

Biblical instructions for dealing with rape are found in Deuteronomy. 

If a man happens to meet in a town a woman pledged to be married and he sleeps with her, you shall take both of them to the gate of that town and stone them to death - the young woman because she was in a town and did not scream for help, and the man because he violated another man's wife. -Deuteronomy 22:23-24

But if out in the country a man happens to meet a young woman pledged to be married and rapes her, only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death. ...For the man found the young woman out in the country, and though she screamed, there was no one to rescue her. -Deuteronomy 22:24-27

If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and sleeps with her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives.  -Deuteronomy 22:28-29

Depending on how we read these instructions, they can sound archaic and draconian. They used to make me angry. If I get raped then I have to marry the guy and can never get divorced?! Women were stoned for this?! I often hear from people who just can't embrace the Old Testament because of things like this. A lot of people read it like God wants an honor-killing, and if a girl is raped then she should be killed. And if you read it like that, then yeah, it makes sense to be upset with God because nothing is just or fair or kind about that.

But that is not the meaning of this passage!

The first thing we need to recognize 'rape' is not the literal meaning of the word that is translated variously as rape, lie with, or sleep with.  The word used to imply sex is sakab (Strongs H7901), which means to lie with or sleep with. This is used similarly to the English phrase, "sleep with," which is generally a euphemism for sex, but can also be used literally. When Samuel lies down in the Tabernacle (1 Samuel 3:3), he is lying down to sleep, nothing sexual is meant. Sakab in itself does not denote rape. Rachel used this word when she acquired mandrakes, it was what Potiphar's wife said when she tried to entice Joseph, and Leviticus uses this word to describe intimacy in marriage. But sakab is also used in the stories of Dinah and Tamar being raped in Scripture. We have to look at the context of the verses to see if the act was consensual or forced.

This means that Deuteronomy 22 addresses various sexual encounters, and not just rape!

When most of us think of rape, we think of someone going about their business until a stranger appears and assaults them. But it's actually more common for rape to be perpetrated by a friend, date, or boyfriend than for the victim to be grabbed in a dark alley by an unknown assailant. 

In my work with teenagers and young adults, it is concerning how often young men are surprised by allegations of rape. Frequently young men are shocked when a friend or girlfriend accuses of them of rape, after what they believed was consensual sex. It's not that there wasn't sex and someone is falsely accusing them. It's that there was sex that one person thought was consensual, but that the other didn't. The same sexual act was experienced differently by the girl and the guy. She felt she was being raped, while he had no idea. 

Obviously not all sexual assault is like this - some people are attacked by strangers (we'll get to what the Bible says about that). But it is alarming how often this happens. And we can blame it on poor sexual education, bad morals, the patriarchy, movie culture, or whatever, but in this case we aren't so much concerned about why this is happening, as with the fact that YHWH made provisions to prevent this. 

Why does it matter if the woman screamed or not?

God has always intended for his people to know his words and instructions like these. These directions were given to all his people. This means that all his people had clear instructions about what consensual sex would look like. Men knew that if a woman was screaming and he pushed sex on her that was a capital offense that he could be put to death for. Women knew that if they didn't make it clear they weren't okay with it (by screaming), then they would be held accountable as well. With this instruction, there would be no surprises after the fact. Each party knew what was happening.

I believe the provision of screaming was so that men knew forcing sex on someone who was resisting was absolutely off-limits. It painted a clear picture of what, "No," looks like, and also prepared and empowered women about what to do should they find themselves in those circumstances. We might feel like it should be obvious what constitutes rape or consent, but I can attest from talking to hundreds of teens (and adults) that it is not clear to everyone. If the simple 'rule of scream' were laid out today, many people would benefit from that, and much trauma and heartache could be avoided.

Now the Bible is not saying here that if you were raped and didn't scream because of shock or fear then you are somehow to blame for the assault. NO. If you were raped, you are not to blame! This stipulation was intended to create a culture of clear guidelines for consensual sex. We do not have that culture today, and many suffer trauma because of it. For many people, seeing physical relationships played out on television and in movies is their only information about what the moments leading up to sex look like. How many movies have you seen where a first kiss escalates to clothing coming off within ten seconds? When the people involved are not even in a relationship? I would say sex is portrayed like that more often than not in movies. The dysfunction of this is a massive disservice to our culture. 

Because of the stipulation about screaming, the implication is that if you were not actively resisting you are prepared to be accountable for this action. Again, that's not to cast blame on victims who were pressured into sex and threatened into silence. Most women and girls today have never been told what to do if they are assaulted or if a boyfriend takes things further than they would like. If they've heard anything it's typically about self defense (i.e. the stranger in the alley), which offers limited help for those smaller and less strong than the attacker.

Notice that the Bible doesn't say, "If a girl is raped, then stone her"! It gives different instructions for different circumstances.

We can see from the examples in Deuteronomy that the only case where a woman was to be stoned was if she didn't scream, it happened in town, and she was engaged. These circumstances indicate that the sex was consensual, and, therefore, that she was committing adultery. In Scripture, the start of a marriage is at the engagement. If an engaged person chose to sleep with someone else, both parties were to be stoned for adultery - provided the act had been witnessed by two or three people who would testify to this (Deuteronomy 17:7). There are other posts where we tackle the topics of stoning and adultery on this blog which I'll leave links for at the end of the post if you want to know more about that. For what it's worth, the Bible doesn't record anyone being stoned for adultery. 

The element of this act happening in town further points to the woman's consent. People were in much greater proximity to each other during Bible times, with larger families living in smaller homes, and no one had earbuds in or had the radio blasting. We should also remember that homes and dwelling places with multiple rooms were not common until the past two hundred years of recent history. The privacy of multi-story homes with soundproof walls did not exist in Biblical times. Most people throughout history have lived in one room homes or tents, which meant that sex was something that happened in the dark that you tried to tune out. It would not have been a mystery who was sleeping with whom in your household, or if they were a willing participant or not. The implication here is that help was available if it was wanted. If the woman screamed someone nearby would hear and come to her aid.  Note that the example in Deuteronomy 22:23-24 there is no suggestion of the sex being forced, unless the woman cries out for help. By not crying out when there were people around to help, points to it being a consensual encounter. Stoning absolutely was not to happen to someone that was raped.

Let's examine the the different circumstances Deuteronomy 22 gives.

-The engaged woman in town who did not scream from verse 23.

As we've discussed, the hypothetical unmarried couple in this example was participating in consensual sex, and thereby committing adultery. If there were two or three witnesses to this then both the man and the woman could be stoned. Note that this is different from culture's that practice honor-killing where an innocent victim of rape is murdered while the perpetrator goes free. That is not God's heart at all! The only time a woman was to be theoretically put to death was for consensual adultery with multiple witnesses. There is no record of this happening in the Bible.

-The engaged woman raped in the countryside from verse 24.

In this case, with the assault happening in the countryside the implication is that there were no witnesses, and no one around to come and help the woman. What happens in this case, according to the Bible, is that the woman is to be believed. "Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving of death." She is not punished at all, even if she is engaged, since she did not consent. This meant that if an unmarried woman became pregnant after being raped, or if rumors spread that she had slept with someone, others weren't to decide that this was consensual and stone her. In this we see YHWH providing security for women, in that if this happened to them they were not to be harmed or punished in any way.

-The single woman who is violated.

This is the one that used to bother me the most. So if you get raped you're just stuck with the guy who hurt you? But once again we see the sakab word here and nothing in the text suggests that rape occurred. Also while the man is obligated to marry her, we don't see that she has to marry him. (Marriage is consensual in Scripture.) Note that neither Dinah nor Tamar were married off to their rapists. We see the man being held to an extremely high standard of sexual conduct, and if he was going to pressure a girlfriend into sleeping with him or coerce a single woman to do so, he had to be prepared to pay a fine, and marry the woman without ever divorcing her. This was to ensure the woman's livelihood if a male took advantage of her. We see a modern variation of this played out with 'shotgun weddings.' Note that the woman in question does not necessarily have to accept the marriage offer, but a law like this naturally would have lead to all members of society exercising more caution before getting into bed with someone, and fewer vulnerable young women being taken advantage of.

I believe that these laws were intended to be protection for both women and men. The rule of scream ensured that women would know what to do in a situation where they were being pressured to sleep with someone or physically forced to do so. Women knew that if they were raped, then their side of the story was to be believed. Men better understood boundaries and would have been protected from  false accusations of rape. Single women knew that if they slept with a man he wouldn't have the option to leave her with no means of financial support. And both parties understood if they slept together, they needed to be prepared for marriage. 

In most of these examples, the implication is that the woman and man knew each other, and sex was consensual. But what about someone who is just randomly attacked and raped? We see the answer in Deuteronomy 22:26, "Only the man who has done this shall die. Do nothing to the woman; she has committed no sin deserving death." Rape is so abhorrent to God, that he says the perpetrators should be put to death! Think of the cultural implication of that. Rape would be much less common if would-be perpetrators understood that they could be killed for this offense, instead of risking a two-game suspension from football, for example.

You may have noted that in that example the woman was engaged. But what if she wasn't? Again she would not be harmed. Exodus 21:16 tells us that kidnappers should be put to death. If someone is abducted or forced into sex, that would be a form of kidnapping. Kidnapping is also abhorrent to God, and the perpetrator would be put to death, not the victim.

What does the Bible say about rape? "Do nothing to the woman...she is innocent." 

I hope this post helps to shed light on the fact that the Bible absolutely never stones or kills victims of the horrendous crime of rape. We see through the above Scriptures and the Bible's high standards for sexual conduct, that God wanted to create a society that eliminated rape as much as possible.

Related posts:
Biblical Law and the Woman Caught in Adultery
Stoning in the Bible
The Significance of Sarah in the Bible

Overlooked Truths in Proverbs 31

We need a better understanding of Proverbs 31. This passage of Scripture has been twisted, abused, and taken out of context for many years, and too many women have been left feeling inadequate because they don't do every single thing listed. I'd like to say clearly that the Holy Spirit did not inspire this part of the Bible to leave women feeling discouraged! 

The true meaning of the passage of Proverbs 31 is beautiful, but too often it has been used to reprimand women for not "doing it all," or not doing more, or to try and tell women that their only role in society should be inside the home. Most of us read it as a checklist of things we need to or 'should' do. Select wool and flax. Hire servants. Buy a field. Plant a vineyard. Sew clothes. Make a quilt. Gather food. Cook. Stay up late. Get up early. Help the poor. Have energy. Show strength. Make items to sell in the marketplace. It seems like a bit much.

But...it's a poem. It was never meant as an itinerary for all women, everywhere, throughout history. I believe that the many different activities are listed to demonstrate that being a woman of valor can look like a lot of different things! And it shows that all of these jobs, many of which are not glamorous, or are not praised in our culture, have significance. The range of activities in this poem celebrate the various professions, skills, hobbies, and value of women from all walks of life.

We should also note that Proverbs 31 isn't even directed at women. Verse 1 says that the Queen (likely Bathsheba, as "King Lemuel," is thought be Solomon, since the word lemuel means "for God") taught this saying to her son. She wasn't saying it to her daughters to tell them that a woman of valor had to do all these things. This wasn't a checklist. She was saying this to her son. I believe she did this to teach him to recognize that valor and value can come in many different forms. 

This poem calls attention to tasks that need done, but aren't necessarily noticed by those who don't do them. How many times have you gotten up early or stayed up late to attend to the work at hand and felt like no one noticed your effort? Have you worked to be generous to the poor, contribute to ministries, or provide for your family only to have your efforts feel taken for granted or downplayed? 

Proverbs 31 is not just about commercial undertakings, parenting, and homemaking either. It's not about resume building or interesting quips to put in a biography. It highlights specific character traits. Being able to laugh, acting with dignity, speaking with wisdom, generosity, and fearing YHWH are all celebrated in this passage of Scripture. The Queen was pointing out that these traits should be valued and respected!

This Bible passage is a reminder to all of us, but men in particular, not to take for granted the significant work done by women of valor. This is why the last verse says, "Honor her for all that she has done." Proverbs 31 calls us to recognize the character and resilience of the women in our lives. 

Related posts:
The Truth About 1 Corinthians 14
Five Books That Changed My Understanding of Scripture
A Hebraic Perspective on a Woman of Valor

Praying Scripture: Luke 8:48

It's been a while since our last praying Scripture post, but I think this one is too good not to share!

The story of the woman with the issue of blood is so encouraging. Twelve years of struggle, countless visits to doctors, spending her life savings to try and find a solution, nothing that helped, no beneficial remedy, so much frustration...and it's fixed as soon as she comes in contact with the Messiah.

Who doesn't need to be reminded of this story? Maybe what you need healing for isn't an issue with blood, or even a physical ailment. Maybe you've struggled with depression or anxiety. Perhaps there is addiction or an ongoing battle with a specific sin in your life. Have you been plagued by doubt or fear? Is there a family history of heart disease that worries you? No matter how resigned you may be feeling to whatever struggle you have, contact with the Messiah can bring healing and transformation to you!

I wonder about the rest of this woman's story. We know she was desperate for healing, to the point where she had spent everything she had trying to get help from doctors. Did the people in her life realize her desperation? When they learned of her plan to touch Yahusha, were they supportive or did they think it was yet another waste of time? Maybe they even tried to talk her out of going to see him that day. Did they tell her she just needed to accept this issue and get used to it? I'm sure they had a long list of reasons why the Messiah wouldn't help her. Nevertheless she persisted. And Yahusha healed her that day.

And he said to her, "Take courage, daughter. Your belief has healed you. Go in peace." -Luke 8:48

There can't be a lot of sentences more beautiful than that. When the Messiah calls you daughter and tells you that you can have peace and that you're healed...there's not a lot more you could ask. I find myself wanting that kind of faith, the kinds that heals. We all need that.

A prayer from Luke 8:48 (along with other Scripture):

YHWH, thank you for the incredible honor and gift of being called your child! Help me to live out of the courage that comes from knowing I belong to you. I ask that you would transform my mind by changing the way I think, so that I might have the kind of faith and beliefs that are healing - not only to myself but to those in my life as well. Thank you that all things are possible with you, and that just a touch from you is healing. Help me to be persistent in getting to you, no matter what anyone else says. Your word says that your garment fills the Temple. Thank you that it is plenty wide enough for each of us to grab onto for healing. Let your peace rule my heart and help me to live in the wholeness you have for me.

Eshet Chayil: A Hebraic Perspective

We have heard so much about the Proverbs 31 woman who does it all. She is the golden girl of the Bible. While we don't hear much about ladies like Ruth, Tabitha, Mary, Abigail, Shiphrah, Puah, Huldah, Leah, or Jael we know the job description of Proverbs 31 all too well. One cursory reading of her accomplishments can feel wholly overwhelming. We have heard that it's a checklist and felt overwhelmed at the amount of things to do. Get up early. Go to bed late. Work all day. Make clothes. Invest money. Cook the meals. Plant a vineyard. Help the poor. Sew a quilt.

Did you know this is not how YHWH intended this passage to be read? A lot of this poem gets lost when it is translated into English and the several thousand years between when it was written and the present hasn't helped either. I think it's time to set aside this view of Proverbs 31 and take a look at it from a Hebraic perspective.

A couple of things we miss:

This is a poem, not a to do list.

This was told to a man.

Eshet chayil usually gets translated something like, "virtuous woman," "good wife," "a capable wife," or a "wife of noble character." And this really, really shortchanges this poem. Firstly it should be translated woman or female, as in whether or not you are married. Second, chayil would be better translated as valor (you know, how they translate the word when they talk about men). Other meanings of chayil include strength, ability, wealth, and force.

When was the last time someone encouraged you to get out there and be a force?

Eshet chayil = a woman of valor.

Verse one of the chapter starts mentioning that King Lemuel's mother told it to him. Not to his sisters. Not to her daughter in law. To him. So right off the bat we can tell that this is not a list of instructions or a checklist of what to get done in a day. In fact, each line of the poem (starting in verse 10) starts with a letter of the Hebrew alphabet. Sort of like, 'A is for Awesome, B is for Brilliant, C is for Courageous,' except much more eloquent.

But why is she telling this to a male? Verse 1 also mentions that his mother used this to discipline him. I don't know about you but I have one guess as to when this reprimand came out. We don't know for sure, but it sounds like when Lemuel was disrespectful his mother made him listen to this. When he was rude to a female servant or teacher she told him this. When he picked on his sisters or an aunt, this got brought up. Can't you hear the frustrated yell of a mother, "Who can find a woman of valor?! Are you kidding? Look around you, we're everywhere!"

In traditional Judaism, Eshet Chayil is used to praise a woman of valor before the Shabbat meal. It is said or sung by the husband or father in the household to his wife and daughters. He does it to praise them. He is not handing out things to do (it is Shabbat, after all), or pointing out the areas the women fell short in this week. He is praising them. 

That's what the queen mother was doing too. Praising women of valor. She was not only pointing out how hard the women in his life worked, but that they did it with excellence and deserved to be praised. And that's what she was teaching her son as well. To praise the women in his life. It's time we took back eshet chayil and woman of valor and used them to compliment each other.

Make your first Etsy sale? Eshet chayil. Decide to finish your degree? Eshet chayil. Get your Shabbat prep done an hour ahead of time? Eshet chayil! Go for a run today? Eshet chayil. Make all your free throws in a basketball game? Eshet chayil. Accomplish your goal of reading the Bible in a year? Eshet chayil! Publish your first article? Eshet chayil.

This is not a checklist. Just as examining the life of a friend is a celebration of her accomplishments and talents, not a to do list for me. Can I be inspired by her? Absolutely. Do we have a few things in common? Probably. Should I attempt to squeeze her daily schedule into mine? No, thank you! In fact, the only instructive statement is in the very last verse. Proverbs 31:31 tells us to, "Honor her for what she has done." We should honor the women of valor in our lives (including yourself!) because YHWH does. Whether or not things have gone smoothly this week, YHWH praises you for the time, energy, and creativity you spent to bless your family and friends, to study His Word, and to practice righteous living. Even when things don't turn out perfectly! That's what YHWH does and that's what he is asking both women and men to do. To stop and say, "Eshet chayil." You are a woman of valor. You have ability. You are strong. You are a force. Eshet chayil.