The Boy Jesus in the Temple
Now every year his parents went to Jerusalem for the festival of the Passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up as usual for the festival. When the festival was ended and they started to return, the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, but his parents did not know it. Assuming that he was in the group of travelers, they went a day’s journey. Then they started to look for him among their relatives and friends. When they did not find him, they returned to Jerusalem to search for him. After three days, they found him in the temple, sitting among the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. And all who heard him were amazed at his understanding and his answers. When his parents saw him, they were astonished; and his mother said to him, ‘Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety.’ He said to them, ‘Why were you searching for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’ But they did not understand what he said to them. Then he went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them. His mother treasured all these things in her heart. And Jesus increased in wisdom and in years, and in divine and human favor.
Pastor: This is the Word of the Lord!
People: Thanks be to God.Sermon for First Reformed Church, December 27, 2009
Title: A Calling that Caused Worry
Text: Luke 2:41-52
If you look at this text from the standpoint of a parent, you see immediately that it portrays a mixed bag of behaviors. Some of them are good and noteworthy and they would fill any parent with pride. Others are outright questionable. Yet, somewhere in between, there is a message for us on this morning.
Undoubtedly good is the fact that the boy Jesus was apparently able to hold his own in the question-and-answer session with the temple teachers. Remarkable was also his certainty regarding his identity and calling: ‘Do you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?’
But think about his worried parents! For three days, they had searched for him in vain. When they, finally, made it back onto the temple grounds, it was like returning to a crowded mall or football stadium. This is, at least, how scholars describe the situation. Much of the temple property was open courtyard, surrounded by colonnaded areas where teachers held their classes. The boy Jesus had joined one of them.
Ancient world literature has, of course, more amazing-child stories than this one. Yet, they usually sound different, as they do not include a critical dimension: The childhood stories of Achilles, Heracles, Alexander the Great, and others portray them as exceptional from an early age on, but not as children who cause their parents grief.
In his new commentary, Richard Vinson claims that our story is different, because it employs an appropriate understanding of developmental psychology. According to Vinson, our story describes a ‘pure teenager’, that wonderful and maddening mixture of quick perceptiveness and utter self-absorption.
To drive his point home, Vinson builds a bridge to today’s parents of adolescent children when he remarks that the way [the boy Jesus] talks to Mary, under normal circumstances, would probably only increase the length of his grounding.’ Vinson further elaborates on this. When Jesus defends himself, ‘Did you not know that I must be in my Fathe’rs house?’ Vinson has Mary respond:
‘Didn’t we know? Worry us sick, and then he says we should have known? I’ll tell you what you’re going to know, young man! You’re going to know the inside of your father’s workshop like the back of your hand, and you’re not going to know much else until Elijah comes back or you grow up, whichever comes first!’
Other scholars, however, shy away from applying developmental psychology to the scene. They emphasize the fundamental belief of Antiquity that personality never changes throughout life, and that children are, therefore, something like miniature adults.
From this vantage point, Jesus’ portrayed treatment of his parents requires sociological, not psychological interpretation. Sociologically, our story marks not only the beginning of Jesus’ adulthood, but also his concomitant leaving of the private world of women and entering the public world of men. Interpreted in this way, the upsetting response Jesus gave to his mother originally may have been intended to show early Christians that Jesus had successfully mastered the transition into manhood.
Be this as it may. Either way, Jesus’ behavior caused his parents grief. When called on it, he responded by talking down to his mother. Each time, the text does not try to hide this. We can explain it psychologically or sociologically. Yet, in the end, we stand back puzzled. We know it is real. At the same time, we wonder whether it was intended to be this way. It may be an accurate description of reality. Nevertheless, we would like to know, whether there is a deeper meaning to the juxtaposition of good and not so good in the very same story.
Richard Vinson, the commentator I quoted earlier, suggests relating these contrasts theologically ‘to the intersection of humanity and divinity in Jesus.’ This enables him to provide meaning to the story’s coexistence of the good and not so good. Yes, his divine nature needs Jesus to be in his Father’s house, but human reality has a few strings attached. Ultimately, however, Vinson condenses the interplay between these two contrasts in a single question:
Would God really encourage a young adolescent to stay behind in the big city and worry his parents to death?
The implied answer is, of course, ‘No!’ We may startle at the bluntness of this recognition. Yet, it gives us, at least, an appreciation of the difficulties the revelations of God encounter in this world.
I would like to transfer some of these insights now into our daily lives. When confronted with the opaque behavior of her son, Mary received a glance into the future. At one point or another, we, too, have experienced the mystery of God’s will. At times, the path ahead of us could not be clearer. Prosperity and success seem to affirm the general benevolence of God.
At other times, we are stunned. Why me? we ask, or Why this innocent one? Then we resort to prayer. Again, at times the onset of healing seems to affirm the general benevolence of God and unmasks the time of trial as a test.
What happens, however, if the onset of healing never comes and the paradigm of testing reveals itself as absurd? What happens when prayer remains seemingly unanswered? Will the mystery also render God’s presence invalid?
Back in the Temple, Mary received a foretaste of how strangely opaque her son’s life would become. We cannot even venture to assume what she must have felt under the cross, when it had become apparent that this cup had not been removed from him.
Having recognized this, we are well within our bounds in applying it to the very future of our church as well. In stating this, I do not want to deny that we have a great vision, and a good plan. Before we get to the mysterious part, let me therefore state what we have:
We know that growth in numbers will not necessarily eliminate the deficit in our annual budget. Consequently, we have emphasized income through building usage. In addition, we have linked our church to a number of institutions that provide meaning and income. These range from the soup kitchen Elijah’s Promise to City Hall, to the New Brunswick public school system, all the way to our colleagues at the New Jersey Historic Trust, from whom we receive half of the funding for our preservation project.
However, we are not finished, and our budget deficit is still there. Consequently, our Consistory has approved this month a contract with a special interior architect from Philadelphia. We have asked him to provide us with a feasibility study of what might be possible in our church building itself: How could we divide its space anew and in ways that would enable us to respond to some of the needs of our community and save utility costs at the same time? What possibilities might this offer regarding other institutional partners with whom we could walk into the future together?
Once the study is complete, Consistory will present it to you as the congregation and open the floor for discussion. It will not be a very fast process, as group work always takes time. Nobody can currently predict the outcome. Only one thing is clear today: As good stewards of this property, we must venture the exploration.
Today, however, on the Eve to a New Year, we have received a foretaste from our Lord’s own childhood on how complicated and complex it may be when we pursue a call in earnest. The boy Jesus’ appearance in the temple has shown us: We cannot ratify a call the way we would ratify a strategic paper. When we experience this spiritual truth in our own future, I hope we will remember that the holy family itself was not exempt from these dynamics and that this was not at all easy for them. Yet, this, too, is part of the story that we continue to write.
So, will our future be unambiguous and easy? As I said earlier, certainly not! Will it give cause to some worry and increased need to understand? If we follow the paradigm of the 12-year-old Jesus in the Temple, undoubtedly, we will have to answer, “yes.” Serious struggle for a better future is no easy business! Yet, in all of this, it will be important that we do not interpret the uncertainties of the path ahead of us as void of God’s presence.
Rather, the text itself makes us an offer, when it sets before us Mary. Instead of getting upset, she pondered all these things in her heart. I suppose this is what kept her balanced and, ultimately, self-differentiated enough not to succumb to blind anxiety. The text invites us to follow her into the New Year. Amen.
The Scripture quotations contained herein are from the New Revised Standard Version Bible, copyright, 1989, by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the U.S.A. Used by permission. All rights reserved.
The quotations from Richard Vinson are taken from Richard B. Vinson, Luke, (Smyth & Helwys Bible commentary, 21), Macon, GA, 2008.
The sociological approach referenced here is taken from Bruce J. Malina / Richard L. Rohrbaugh, Social-Science Commentary on the Synoptic Gospels, 2nd edition, Minneapolis, MN, 2003.
{ 0 comments… add one now }