Sunday Dec. 27th, thoughts going in

Luke 2:41-52
41 Every year His parents traveled to Jerusalem for the Passover Festival. 42 When He was 12 years old, they went up according to the custom of the festival. 43 After those days were over, as they were returning, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but His parents did not know it. 44 Assuming He was in the traveling party, they went a day's journey. Then they began looking for Him among their relatives and friends. 45 When they did not find Him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for Him. 46 After three days, they found Him in the temple complex sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. 47 And all those who heard Him were astounded at His understanding and His answers. 48 When His parents saw Him, they were astonished, and His mother said to Him, "Son, why have You treated us like this? Your father and I have been anxiously searching for You." 49 "Why were you searching for Me?" He asked them. "Didn't you know that I had to be in My Father's house?" 50 But they did not understand what He said to them.
51 Then He went down with them and came to Nazareth and was obedient to them. His mother kept all these things in her heart. 52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people. (HCS)

This small passage from Luke is the only glimpse we get into the ‘boyhood’ of Jesus from canonical sources—making it interesting if for no other reason. The “Infancy Gospel of Thomas,” for instance, is keen to present a young Jesus as a miracle worker (albeit somewhat capricious), whereas St. Luke’s presentation seems much more down to earth.

Vss 41-45: Here Luke presents the “holy family” as the ultimate in Jewish piety. Passover was one of the 3 pilgrim festivals that all Jewish males were supposed to attend (scholars seem agreed that this was optional for women & children). The key word, though, is “supposed.” The further away one lived, the less likely it would be that they’d make the journey (Barclay says the cutoff was usually 20 miles, but he doesn’t footnote his comment). For some, merely making the pilgrimage once in a lifetime was the goal. Nazareth to Jerusalem was a good three-days journey. That Jesus’ **peasant** parents are presented as making the trip yearly is borderline incredible. And yet, I confess that this passage holds an interest for me in a tangential sense. Like most protestants, I accept that Jesus was the *oldest of his siblings, with James coming next. And, given my insatiable interest in James, I have often wondered how the son of a “simple peasant carpenter” could grow up and become such an eminent Jewish sage. In the case of Jesus we always make ‘allowances,’ cuz after all, he’s the Son of God. But James wasn’t. As with most cases, we’re not presented with nearly enough textual evidence to draw many conclusions, but the tiny fragments we are given seem to present this family as incredibly over the top in terms of old fashioned Jewish piety. The “traditional” view that the gospels go silent on Joseph relatively quickly means that Joseph must’ve died is an argument from silence. Perhaps they go quiet on Joseph because the gospels aren’t about Joseph, they’re about Jesus. Regardless, it seems *very possible that James got his piety and influence from the same place a lot of children do—his father.
The pilgrimage to Jerusalem took place in a group—a caravan of other kinsfolk or villagers all going ‘up’ for the same reason. Sidenote: one always goes UP to Jerusalem, regardless of which point on the compass one’s journey originates from. Jerusalem is physically “up” in that it is built on hills, but it is also theologically “up”…..one always goes up to the HOLY CITY. As Malina points out, travel in this culture was always potentially dangerous, but this danger is mitigated if undertaken in groups. It’s pure speculation (and so pointless) as to HOW the group could’ve left without all noses accounted for. Luke obviously doesn’t care, or he would’ve told us. Barclay says the women & children left first & were joined by the men later (another non-footnoted remark), but who knows? The point of the NARRATIVE at this juncture is that we are to understand that from Mary & Joseph’s perspective, life was supposed to be getting back to “normal.” They’d done their religious duty, now they were headed back to Nazareth to pick back up with life. But that storyline is interrupted with the fact that Jesus wasn’t with them.

Vss 46-47: The “after 3 days” remark is not intended to conjure up later resurrection motifs. Today’s critical scholars have done a good job of pointing out that in Luke’s gospel resurrection motifs are symbolized by the term “The third day.” Hence, “after three days” is simply a way of marking time. Jesus is found sitting among the teachers. Older and more romantic takes on this passage have Jesus as the ‘star lecturer’ among the teachers, but most commentators these days recognize that as a completely fanciful interpretation. It is enough to present the BOY Jesus as supremely curious and excellently responsive when it comes to what the teachers of Torah have to say.

Vss 48-50: These verses comprise both the central core of the text, but also some of the biggest interpretive hurdles—at least they seem to cause a lot of hand-wringing among commentators. For instance, some are befuddled that MARY is the one doing the talking. Some are troubled that Mary is evidently scolding the Son of God. Others are equally troubled that Jesus has severely bent—if not broken—the 4th commandment…..either in dishonoring his parents by staying behind in the first place, or by doing so here in his retort to his mother.
In simply letting the narrative **BE**, however, these problems disappear. It seems clear that Luke’s primary goal is CHRISTOLOGICAL. He wants to show that the boy Jesus understands himself as uniquely God’s son (whether this understanding came to him prior to entering the Temple this time or at this precise moment is speculation). This understanding, in Luke’s gospel, comes YEARS before Jesus’ baptism. But in order to get this out in the narrative sense, dialog must take place. It makes sense that Mary makes the initial statement because that allows for the dual use of the word Father: “your father and I have been looking for you,”…..and “I HAD to be in my Father’s house.”
That “they didn’t understand what he said to them” is simply indicative that even as parents of the Messiah, theirs is a journey of faith not so unlike our own.

Vss 51-52: These are perhaps my favorite of the entire text. I used to have a prof back at the seminary who would get his feathers ruffled at the idea that “the baby Jesus didn’t have diaper rash.” His point was that Jesus was FULLY human, and that at various times in church history this has been forgotten. Too often we get the impression that being the Son of God meant that (in today’s thought) Jesus would naturally have been a straight A student (with no effort), plus captain of the swim team, etc. etc. etc. In other words, too often we have the mistaken impression that Jesus cruised through being human without any of the bumps in the road that regular people experience. Not only is this untrue, but we don’t really WANT it to be true. To paraphrase the old church father, ‘what Jesus didn’t take unto himself, he didn’t redeem.’ In today’s lingo, we need Jesus to have struggled with long division, tipped over on his bike & skinned his knee, and who struck out with the bases loaded. We NEED a savior who experienced humanity the same we we have, not with a free pass at every critical juncture. This is what it means that he [was able to] “increase in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and with people.”

Final note: Primary thoughts on this passage have come primarily from Nolland, and Brown....who, imo, seem to have nailed it pretty well. Not sure yet how I'll go homiletically, but as I think the passage was intended to be primarily christological, I could envision a sermon highlighting the HUMANITY of the Savior. We need always to be reminded that a Jesus from the planet Krypton does us no good whatsoever. The nails would never be able to pierce his hands.

cheers,

TM