MARTHA

UAKTHA is first mentioned (Lk 10»»-«) as living in ' a certain village ' with her sister Mary, and as receiv-ing our Lord as He passed on His way. We know from Jn 11' and 12' that they afterwards lived with Lazarus, their brother, in Bethany; the village, then, may be either Bethany or where they M ved before moving there. The characters of the two sisters are strongly marked and rendered vivid by their contrast; we shall therefore deal with the characteristics of both in this article.

Martha is over-anxious, and distracted with house-hold duties; while Mary, as a disciple, sits 'at the feet' (ct. Ac 22') of Jesus. Martha complained to our Lord of Mary's inactivity, and showed some temper, perhaps jealousy, by speaking of the matter to Him rather than to her. Jesus commenced His reply with 'Martha, Martha,' repeating the name as He did on another occasion of loving correction ('Simon, Simon,' Lk 223'), and blamed her for her outward agitation ('troubled') and inward anxiety .('careful,' RV 'anxious'), telling her that she lacked 'the one thing needful.' (For various reading see RVm.) He then praised Mary for having 'chosen that good part' which from its nature was everlasting, and so would 'not be taken from her.' He blamed Martha, not for her attentive service of love, but for allowing that service to irritate, agitate, and absorb her. Martha's character here is loving, active, self-reliant, practical, hasty; Mary's also loving, but thoughtful, humble, receptive, dependent, devoted. We find the same distinguishing marks in Jn 1 1 , where the two sisters again appear in the narrative of the raising of Lazarus. When Jesus, after delaying for four days (v.") to come in response to their joint request (v.'), arrived, Martha was the first to hear of His arrival, and at once went to meet Him. Mary, on the other hand, removed by her grief from the activities of life engaged in by her sister, was unaware of His coming. The moment, however, that she was sent for by Him (v.^*) she hurried to His presence, and fell down at His feet. The contrast of character seen in Lk 10 is here markedly present.

' Martha holds a conversation, argues with Him, remon-strates with Him, and in the very crisis of their grief shows her practical common sense in deprecating the removal of the stone. It is Mary who goes forth silently to meet Him, silently and tearfully, so that the bystanders suppose her to be going to weep at her brother's tomb; who, when she sees Jesus, falls down at His feet; who, uttering the same words of faith in His power as Martha (w.^'- 32)^ does not qualify them with the same reservation; who infects all the bystanders with the intensity of her sorrow, and crushes the human spirit of our Lord Himself with sym-pathetic grief (Lightfoot, Biblical Essays, p. 37).

The sisters appear again, and finally, in Jn 12, at the Supper given to our Lord at Bethany (see art. Mary, No. 2); and again their contrast of disposition is seen. Martha, as presumably the elder sister, 'served,' while Mary poured the precious ointment on the Saviour's head and feet. A comparison between this passage and Lk lo^s-" shows, indeed, the same Martha, but now there is no record of her over-anxiety or distraction, or of any complaint of her sister's absorption in devotion to the Saviour; for doubtless she had herself now chosen that good part which would not be taken from her. Chakles T. P. Gbierson.

MARTYR.— See Witness. ,

MARY.— The Gr. form of Heb. Minam.

1. Mary, mother of James and Joses, was one of the company of women who followed Jesus from Galilee, ministering unto Him, and who beheld from afar the crucifixion (Mt 27"); she is spoken of as 'the other Mary' (27" 28'), as 'the mother of James the little and Joses' (Mk 15"), as 'Mary the [mother] of Joses' (Mk 15"), and as ' Mary the [mother] of James' (Mk 16', Lk 24'»). That she is identical with 'Mary the [wife] of Clopas' (Jn IQ^*) is almost, though not absolutely, certain; the imcertainty arising from the fact that as

MARY

'many women' (Mt 27") were present, St. John may have mentioned a Mary who was distinct from the Mary mentioned as present by the Synoptists. It is very doubtful whether this 'Mary o( Clopas' was sister to the Virgin Mary. The words of St. John, ' There were standing by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene,' are ambiguous; for He may have intended to name four women as present — the Virgin's sister being one, and Mary of Clopas another — or only three, the Virgin's sister being described as 'Mary of Clopas.' Certain decision on the point seems impos-sible. Cf . Beethren of the Lord, ad fin.

2. Mary, the sister of Martha, is mentioned thrice in the Gospels — (1) as sitting at the feet of Jesus, while her sister served (Lk lO's-^); (2) as falling at His feet on His arrival to raise Lazarus from the grave (Jn ll''-'^); (3) as anointing His feet during the feast at Bethany before the Passion (Mt 26'-'=, Mk 143-", Jn 12'-8). The first and second of these occasions are dealt with in art. Martha, where the character of Mary is also treated of. It remains, therefore, for us only to con-sider the last.

The accounts of this incident as given in the first two Gospels and by St. John have been thought to disagree both as to where and when the feast was held. As regards the pl€u:e, the Fourth Gospel mentions Martha as serving, and it has therefore been assumed that the gathering was in her house — a fact held to be in contradiction to the statement of Mt. and Mk. that it took place in the house of Simon the leper. But even if St. John's words do bear this meaning, there is not necessarily any disagreement, for her house might also be known as the house of Simon the leper. Her husband or her father may have been named Simon, and may have been a leper. In fact, we know far too little of the circumstances to be justified in charging the writers with inaccuracy. A careful study of St. John's statement, however, seems to show that the gathering was not in Martha's house; for the words 'Jesus came to Bethany, where Lazarus was, whom Jesus raised from the dead. So they m^de a supper there; and Martha served,' imply that the people of Bethany as a whole honoured our Lord, who had shown His power notably by raising their fellow-towns-man, with a public feast. At such a feast Lazarus would be one of those that would sit at meat with Him, and Martha assuredly would serve. The reason why they selected the house known as that of Simon the leper cannot be determined; but it may have been simply because it was the most suitable building.

As regards the date of the feast, John distinctly places our Lord's arrival as 'six days before the passover,' and implies that the feast was then held immediately. Mt. and Mk., however, first record the words of our Lord, in which He foretells His betrayal as about to occur 'after two days,' and (/ten add their account of the feast in Bethany. If the Fourth Gospel be taken as definitely fixing the date as six days before the Passover, then the Synoptists must have placed their account of the incident later than it reafiy happened. Probably this is what they did; and their reason for so doing is evidently to connect our Lord's rebuke of Judas (Mt 26"- ", Jn 12') with the traitor's decision to betray Him. With this object in view they place the anointing by Mary immediately before the betrayal, introducing it with a vagueness of language which avoids any definite statement of time (Mt 20= 'Now when Jesus was in Bethany'; Mk 14^ 'And while he was in Bethany'). There is really no contradiction in the records, but rather a change in the order of events, of deliberate purpose, by Mt. and Mk. for the purpose of elucidating the treachery of Judas.

Mary's act of devotion in anointing the head (Mt 26') and feet (Jn 12=) of our Lord, and in wiping His feet with her hair, is in perfect keeping vrith her character as seen in Lk 10 and Jn 11 — as she sat at His feet as a disciple, and fell at Hie feet in grief, so now in humble adoration she anoints His feet with the precious oint-ment, and wipes them with the hair of her head. The act called forth the hypocritical indignation of Judas. But Jesus at once silenced him, accepting the anointing as for His burial, and predicting that wherever His Gospel should be preached, there should her deed of love be remembered.

588