39 And when they had performed everything according to the Law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, to their own town of Nazareth. 40 And the child grew and became strong, filled with wisdom. And the favor of God was upon him.
41 Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the Feast of the Passover. 42 And when he was twelve years old, they went up according to custom. 43 And when the feast was ended, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem. His parents did not know it, 44 but supposing him to be in the group they went a day's journey, but then they began to search for him among their relatives and acquaintances, 45 and when they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem, searching for him. 46 After three days they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. 48 And when his parents[g] saw him, they were astonished. And his mother said to him, “Son, why have you treated us so? Behold, your father and I have been searching for you in great distress.” 49 And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?”[h] 50 And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them. 51 And he went down with them and came to Nazareth and was submissive to them. And his mother treasured up all these things in her heart.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and in stature[i] and in favor with God and man.
Questions:
ReplyDelete1. v43 - Did Jesus just disobey His parents?
2. v49 - Did Jesus do anything wrong?
3. v52 - Jesus gained favor with man?
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-day-jesus-went-awol-luke-239-52 says:
ReplyDeleteother than this incident in the very young years of our Lord the account in Luke chapter 2 . . . there is no other biblical record of any incident in the growing up years of Jesus. It must be that Luke felt this story was very important indeed, to be the only childhood incident reported in his gospel.
this is the last time Joseph is ever mentioned in the life of our Lord.
While we must grant that Jesus was without sin, how is it that His actions here, which were regarded as wrong by His parents, are not wrong? Why can Jesus’ actions not be wrong for Him, when they would have been wrong for any other Jewish (or Gentile for that matter) boy?
This text will soon sneak up on you, and teach a most important lesson, with tremendous implications.
the men and the women may have traveled in groupings which were separate. We are told that the women and children were often in front, with the men at the rear. Each of the parents might therefore have assumed that Jesus was with the other parent.
For three days they searched for the boy Jesus.
One would have expected the lad to have looked downward, stung by the rebuke and His foolishness and thoughtlessness. Such is not the case, however, for Jesus’ response shifts the focus from His error to their own. In response to the rebuke of His mother, there is the gentle rebuke of His own question. “Why would you have had to look for Me?” He seems to have said. “Would you not have known where you could find Me?” And perhaps pointedly in response to Mary’s reference to Joseph as His father, Jesus stated that He was in His Father’s house, just where the Son should have been.
There are several ways in which this story can be explained. Let’s consider our options and then seek to determine which one points to the meaning of the text.
(1) Our first option is simply to take this as a kind of anecdote. there are too many things each gospel writer could have said to think that a trivial incident would be included, if not significant to the gospel as a whole.
(2) A second, but unacceptable, option is to understand that Jesus was wrong to remain behind in Jerusalem, at least without informing His parents of what He was doing. Since Jesus was the Son of God, in whom there was no sin, then He cannot have done wrong here, even as a child.
(3) A third option is to view Jesus as a kind of “absent-minded” Messiah, who is so preoccupied with the temple and the Scriptures that He simply missed the Caravan, and was thus left behind. Jesus, it is suggested, was just caught up with “His Father’s business,” and the rebuke of His parents came as a shock. This is a bit hard to believe, however. I hardly think that an “absent-minded Jesus story” is fitting immediately after Luke’s comment that Jesus was increasing in wisdom. Jesus’ words indicate that He purposefully remained on in Jerusalem.
(4) The fourth option is that Jesus’ parents were negligent, and were solely responsible for leaving Jerusalem without Jesus. This doesn’t square with the story, either. If Jesus had made this trip with His parents before (as I take it He did), then He must have been accustomed to the way it was done, He must have proven Himself capable on previous trips. An oversight on the parents’ part still does not explain the purposefulness of our Lord in remaining behind.
https://bible.org/seriespage/6-day-jesus-went-awol-luke-239-52 continued:
ReplyDelete(5) Our final option is that Jesus was right in what He did, and that His parents were wrong in being angry with Him and rebuking Him. Jesus purposed to stay in Jerusalem, without His parents’ permission, and without informing them of His actions. The question is, why?
First, Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem to learn of God.
Second, it appears that Jesus remained in Jerusalem to learn from the teachers at the temple those things which His parents could not teach Him.
Third, I believe that Jesus remained on in Jerusalem because He would not have been given permission to stay there. Think about it for a moment. What do you think Mary and Joseph would have said in response to this request: “Can I stay on in Jerusalem for a few days to discuss the Old Testament and theology with the leading teachers of Israel?” More than now, children were to be seen and not heard. I can’t imagine our Lord’s earthly parents giving Him permission to do what He needed to do. Thus, He did not ask them.
Finally, and most importantly, Jesus did not ask permission to stay on in Jerusalem because He was God. On one level, the level from which Mary and Joseph saw it, Jesus was but a young boy, a boy incapable of making such critical decisions, a boy who was not old enough to stay by Himself in Jerusalem, a boy who was too young to be discussing the Scriptures with the finest teachers in Israel. But while He was a human being, a 12 year-old boy, He was also God incarnate, just as the angel had said to Mary and Joseph years before.
Hopefully we can now understand why Jesus did and said what He did in the incident at the temple. The passage serves several important functions, as I currently understand it.
(1) The passage affirms both the humanity and the deity of our Lord.
(2) Our passage reminds us of the principle of growth. In His perfect humanity, our Lord grew, physically, mentally, socially, and spiritually.
(3) Our text reminds us of the relationship between deity and sovereignty. Jesus could do what He did because He was God, and as God He was sovereign.
(4) Our text informs us of the relationship between sovereignty and authority. If Jesus was God, then He was also sovereign. If He was sovereign, then His authority was ultimate, and the parental authority of Mary and Joseph was of a much lessor type.
We need to be very careful in the way we apply the teaching of this passage. The principle is this: If God is our Father, then our ultimate obedience must be to Him, and not to any earthly authority, when the two conflict.
There is a second principle evident in our text: Nothing should hinder us from access to those things which contribute to our spiritual growth.
There is another principle which is valid and pertinent to the Christian life, which is evident here: It is extremely difficult for those who believe in the divine and the human to recognize the two without sacrificing one or the other.
One final principle remains to be stated, which I believe is the key to the whole passage: The most important issue, which determines all else in life, is the answer to the question, “Who is Jesus Christ?”
http://www.jesuswalk.com/lessons/2_39-52.htm says:
ReplyDelete"After three days" probably means "on the third day" -- one day traveling north to Galilee by caravan, one day returning south to Jerusalem, and then the third day searching until they found Jesus.
I believe we see a somewhat naive, twelve-year-old, who is so engrossed in discussing and learning the Scriptures that he hasn't realized the caravan had left without him. Maybe, when he discovered they had already left, he decided to stay put where they could find him. And, surely, they should know where to find him -- in the Temple, in his Father's house.
The tension Jesus is facing is whether he should obey his heavenly Father or his earthly father. This passage gives us a glimpse that at age twelve Jesus is feeling a necessity, a compulsion, to do the Father's will.
In his child's confidence that this ought to be crystal clear, Jesus explains his reasoning, but to no avail. "They did not understand what he was saying to them"
Many of us have learned that it is difficult to submit to those who aren't as intelligent as we are, or as spiritually acute. It can be hard. It can be grating. But it is also necessary -- at least for a time -- so that God can work on other things in our lives. It was necessary for Jesus at this time. The call was there, but it was not yet time to fulfill it. He must wait, learn, grow, and prepare himself for that time when he will enter into his ministry.
https://www.desiringgod.org/messages/the-son-of-god-at-12-years-old says:
ReplyDeleteSome have argued that the story is a legend created by the early church to fill in some of the gaps in their knowledge of Jesus' life. What shall we say to this claim?
First of all, we should be aware that in the second and third centuries many legends arose about the boy Jesus and were put into numerous apocryphal gospels—accounts of Jesus which the early church rejected as not having the authority of the four earliest gospels which we have in the New Testament. Two things speak for the wisdom of the church in recognizing the authority of only Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. One is that there are so few stories about Jesus' childhood in them that it is clear that the writers were not interested in feeding the pious curiosity of the church with legends about Jesus' childhood. They are content to leave almost 30 years of blank space in Jesus' life, because their interest was on the heart of the gospel not peripheral matters. The other thing is that the one story which Luke does include there in 2:41–52 is so reserved that it is very unlike most of the legends of Jesus' childhood. It does not portray him as doing any supernatural deed or speaking in an unduly authoritative way.
First, Theophilus should understand that Jesus knew and loved the law from an early age, and that in the very city where he was lynched 20 years later, he was approved at the age of 12. Or perhaps he wasn't approved. You can be astonished at something you don't like. Maybe the teachers of the law did not care for the implications of Jesus' answers; but then a 12 year old is no threat. They can pat him on the head and say, "Smart kid," and return to their hair splitting and their hypocrisy.
Second, our text has important implications for understanding the divinity of Christ. It helps us understand what Paul meant when he said, "Though he was in the form of God, he did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped but emptied himself, taking the form of a servant" (Philippians 2:6, 7). One of the things Christ emptied himself of was omniscience.
I infer from this that if the Son of God sought out teachers, listened, asked questions, and gave answers about the things of God, therefore so ought his people to seek understanding, especially those preparing for the ministry.
If I learned one thing from my six years of theological education and six years of teaching at Bethel, it is that most people are not eager to understand more about God than they already understand. I would say less than a tenth of all the students I ever taught were hungry to see how reality fits together and eager to drink at history's great wells of wisdom.
Jesus has chosen this crucial stage in his life, on he brink of manhood, to tell his parents in an unforgettable way that he now knows who his real Father is and what it will mean for his mission. And is not this three-day vigil of Mary and Joseph a foreshadowing of that experience? She said, "Your father and I have been seeking you in pain."
So it seems to me that the main teaching of the passage is that Jesus now recognizes his unique sonship to God, and that his mission will require of him a devotion to God's purposes so great that it takes precedence over the closest family ties. He must follow his calling, even if it brings pain and misunderstanding. In this way Luke sets the stage for the adult ministry of the Son of God.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-2-commentary says:
ReplyDeleteBut why was Jesus circumcised, since He was sinless? and did not need to have His heart cleansed? The answer lies in understanding that He came to fulfill the law. In the words of the apostle Paul, Jesus was “born of a woman, born under the Law” (Gal. 4:4). Like His baptism, Jesus’ circumcision served to “fulfill all righteousness” (Matt. 3:15).
Bob Utley on circumcision - This was practiced by all of Israel’s neighbors except the Philistines (Greek Aegean people).
Jewish believer Arnold Fruchtenbaum offers these thoughts on Jesus' circumcision - Circumcision was commanded under TWO of the covenants of the Old Testament. The Abrahamic Covenant - obligatory for Jews, as a sign of Jewishness. The Mosaic Covenant - obligatory for Jews and Gentiles who converted to Judaism, as a sign of submission to the Law. Jesus was circumcised under both covenants, but upon Jesus’ death the Mosaic Covenant came to an end (Heb 8:13+, Ro 10:4+). However, the Abrahamic Covenant still stands. Circumcision as a sign of Jewishness is still in effect.The Abrahamic Covenant is to set the Chosen People apart from the nations around them. It is an ongoing, eternal covenant.
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-2-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteMarvin Vincent - “We read in the Talmud that the members of the Temple-Sanhedrin, who, on ordinary days, sat as a court of appeal from the close of the morning to the time of the evening sacrifice, were wont, upon Sabbaths and feast-days, to come out upon the terrace of the temple, and there to teach. In such popular instruction the utmost latitude of questioning would be given. It is in this audience, which sat upon the ground, surrounding and mingling with the doctors, and hence during, not after, the feast, that we must seek the child Jesus” (Edersheim, “Life and Times,” etc., i. 247). From this, Edersheim argues that the parents set out for home before the close of the feast.
As mentioned above, Jesus’ behavior in this incident was totally unlike anything Joseph and Mary had ever experienced and thus to them inexplicable. Jesus, of course, had not intentionally defied or hurt His parents. What He had done was to make evident the necessary break that was to come between Him and His earthly family." (MacArthur)
Why is it that you were looking for Me - "Jesus' first question means, "Why didn't you know where to look?"
Steven Cole - Jesus here sets the priority of His commitment to the Heavenly Father even above His love for His parents. While we must love our family members, love for Jesus must take precedence if a conflict arises (Luke 14:26+ = “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple."). (Luke 2:39-52 Imitating Jesus)
John MacArthur comments that Jesus' having to be present in His Father's house "is not only the crux of the passage, but also expresses the definitive reality of Christian theology. This statement is the first time in Scripture that any individual claimed God as his personal Father. The Jews viewed God as the Father of all in a creative sense, and the Father of Israel in a national sense. But no one had the audacity to claim God as his Father in a personal, intimate sense, because of the profound implications of such a claim. In this confession, Jesus made it clear that His first priority was to do the will of His heavenly Father. He also lifted Himself above the human realm. He was not in the ultimate sense Joseph’s son, or Mary’s son; He was the eternal Son of God, who came down from heaven (John 3:13; 6:38, 42). As such, He was under the authority of His heavenly Father, not His earthly parents."
https://www.preceptaustin.org/luke-2-commentary continued:
ReplyDeleteMatthew Poole: He increased in wisdom, as He did in age or stature, with respect to His human, not His divine nature. And as God daily magnified His grace and favor towards him, so He gained Him favor with the unrighteous and people of Galilee.”
Henry Morris - Jesus is God (John 1:1) and God is omniscient, so how could He "increase in wisdom?" This question points up the mystery of His divine/human nature. He was fully God, yet fully man (apart from sin), and this mystery is simply beyond human comprehension. We are told that Christ "emptied Himself" (the essence of the Greek term translated "made Himself of no reputation" in Philippians 2:6), thereby implying a voluntary setting aside of His "omni" attributes in order to take "the form of a servant." In the records of His life and teachings, there is abundant evidence of His deity, including His own claims (John 8:12; 11:26). At the same time, there is abundant evidence of His true humanity, including the fact that He "increased in wisdom" as He also grew in stature.
Criswell - Luke indicates that Jesus grew (1) intellectually, (2) physically, (3) spiritually, and (4) socially. Thus He grew and matured like any other person.
Darrell Bock: Matthew, Mark, and Luke all reveal the depth of Jesus’ person gradually. They do not announce that Jesus is God at the start as John’s Gospel does (John 1:1-18).
Questions and summary of findings:
ReplyDelete1. v43 - Did Jesus just disobey His parents?
Perhaps. But, we must always obey God if His commands differ from other authorities. I think that the theory that Jesus did not tell His parents because He knew they would say no is a good one. This would at least not forced him to directly defy His parents (not to mention avoid being forced to go back too early).
2. v49 - Did Jesus do anything wrong?
No. He was forced into a dilemma. See above.
3. v52 - Jesus gained favor with man?
Even though He didn't cater to man (which was very apparent later), His good character and general excellence couldn't help but to be noticed. Of course, this leads to all sorts of sinful expectations and jealousies from others.
Finally, I missed probably the most important question:
ReplyDelete4. If Jesus was God with all the divine attributes, how could He grow?
Jesus grew only in His human nature, not His divine nature. Furthermore, when Jesus came to earth, He set aside (some or all) of His divine attributes. There's some debate as to what access Jesus had to His divine attributes.
Some people say that Jesus had full access to His divine attributes whenever He wanted. That would explain, they say, how Jesus knew things miraculously.
I lean towards the theory that Jesus really did set aside His divine nature when He was here on earth and had no access to it. The miracles and knowledge He received was through the power of the Holy Spirit. His access to the Holy Spirit was/is the same as ours. The apostles also performed miracles through the power of the Holy Spirit. I'd like to think that Jesus was showing us the way, and not performing miracles by His own power, but by the power of the Holy Spirit - which is accessible to us.
Another thought occurred: God sometimes directs us to certain actions not only for our own benefit, but for others'. Was this incident a reminder to Mary and Joseph, who like us, need reminders in the face of day to day life about the proximity of the divine and who Jesus really was? What about the teachers of the law? Some may have lived to see him come into his ministry, but others not. Who knows the impact the words of the young Jesus had on some of those present? Would anyone there recall hearing him as a youth when rumors of Jesus, the Rabbi from Nazareth arise?
ReplyDeleteThanks, Bruce for again gathering all this great food for meditation.