Luke 2:46-50

2. The meeting: Luke 2:46-50.

As it is improbable that they had sought for Jesus for two or three days without going to the temple, the three days must certainly date from the time of separation. The first was occupied with the journey, the second with the return, and the third with the meeting.

Lightfoot, following the Talmud, mentions three synagogues within the temple enclosure: one at the gate of the court of the Gentiles; another at the entrance of the court of the Israelites; a third in the famous peristyle lischchat hagasith, in the S.E. part of the inner court. It was there that the Rabbins explained the law. Desire for instruction led Jesus thither. The following narrative in no way attributes to Him the part of a doctor. In order to find support for this sense in opposition to the text, some critics have alleged the detail: seated in the midst of the doctors. The disciples, it is said, listened around. This opinion has been refuted by Vitringa; and Paul's expression (Acts 22:3), seated at the feet of Gamaliel, would be sufficient to prove the contrary. Nevertheless the expression, seated in the midst of the doctors, proves no doubt that the child was for the time occupying a place of honour. As the Rabbinical method of teaching was by questions, by proposing, for example, a problem taken from the law, both master and disciples had an opportunity of showing their sagacity. Jesus had given some remarkable answer, or put some original question; and, as is the case when a particularly intelligent pupil presents himself, He had attracted for the moment all the interest of His teachers. There is nothing in the narrative, when rightly understood, that savours in the least of an apotheosis of Jesus. The expressions, hearing them, and asking them questions, bear in a precisely opposite direction. Josephus, in his autobiography (c. i.), mentions a very similar fact respecting his own youth. When he was only fourteen years of age, the priests and eminent men of Jerusalem came to question him on the explanation of the law. The apocryphal writings make Jesus on this occasion a professor possessing omniscience. There we have the legend grafted on the fact so simply related by the evangelist. Σύνεσις, understanding, is the personal quality of which the answers, ἀποκρίσεις, are the manifestations.

The surprise of His parents proves that Jesus habitually observed a humble reserve.

There is a slight tone of reproach in the words of Mary. She probably wished to justify herself for the apparent negligence of which she was guilty. Criticism is surprised at the uneasiness expressed by Mary; did she not know who this child was? Criticism reasons as if the human heart worked according to logic.

To the indirect reproach of Mary, Jesus replies in such words as she had never heard from Him before: Wherefore did ye seek me? He does not mean, “You could very well leave me at Jerusalem.” The literal translation is: “What is it, that you sought me?” And the implied answer is: “To seek for me thus was an inadvertence on your part. It should have occurred to you at once that you would find me here.” The sequel explains why.

The phrase τί ὅτι is found in Acts 5:9. Οὐκ ἤδειτε, did ye not know? not, do ye not know? The expression τὰ τοῦ πατρός μου may, according to Greek usage, have either a local meaning, the house of, or a moral, the affairs of. The former sense is required by the idea of seeking; and if, nevertheless, we are disposed to adopt the latter as wider, the first must be included in it. “Where my Father's affairs are carried on, there you are sure to find me.”

The expression my Father is dictated to the child by the situation: a child is to be found at his father's. We may add that He could not, without impropriety, have said God's, instead of my Father's; for this would have been to exhibit in a pretentious and affected way the entirely religious character of His ordinary thoughts, and to put Himself forward as a little saint. Lastly, does not this expression contain a delicate but decisive reply to Mary's words, Thy father and I? Any allusion to the Trinitarian relation must, of course, be excluded from the meaning of this saying. But, on the other hand, can the simple notion of moral paternity suffice to express its meaning? Had not Jesus, during those days of isolation, by meditating anew upon the intimacy of His moral relations with God, been brought to regard Him as the sole author of His existence? And was not this the cause of the kind of shudder which He felt at hearing from Mary's lips the word Thy father, to which He immediately replies with a certain ardour of expression, my Father?

That Mary and Joseph should not have been able to understand this speech appears inexplicable to certain critics, to Meyer, for instance, and to Strauss, who infers from this detail that the whole story is untrue. But this word, my Father, was the first revelation of a relation which surpassed all that Judaism had realized; and the expression, “ to be about the business ” of this Father, expressed the ideal of a completely filial life, of an existence entirely devoted to God and divine things, which perhaps at this very time had just arisen in the mind of Jesus, and which we could no more understand than Mary and Joseph, if the life of Jesus had never come before us. It was only by the light Mary received afterwards from the ministry of her Son, that she could say what is here expressed: that she did not understand this saying at the time.

Does not the original source of this narrative discover itself in this remark? From whom else could it emanate, but from Mary herself?