# Luke 2:51-52



## JasonGoodwin (Mar 1, 2005)

*An example for Christian youth? Definitely*

Brethren,

I was reading in Luke 2 the other day. I saw the part where it said in v. 51 "And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them." In comparing this to Ex. 20:21, I thought he was setting a perfect example for Christian youth. He made himself subject to his parents -- even though He was (and still is) Lord. Could this be another example of servant leadership? That was the message I was getting from this.

Any ideas, anyone? Does what I said square with Scripture? Please help.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 2, 2005)

> _Originally posted by JasonGoodwin_
> *An example for Christian youth? Definitely*
> 
> Brethren,
> ...


Jason,
That sure is an interesting passage. I agree that his subjection to his parents is a perfect example for Christian youth. 

Gill says:
*and was subject unto them*; for though he thought fit to let them know, or, at least, put them in mind, that he had a Father in heaven, whose business he came about, and must do, and therefore did not judge it necessary to ask their leave to stay at Jerusalem on that account; yet, as man, and willing to set an example of filial subjection to parents, he went along with them, and showed all dutiful respect unto them, yielding a ready and cheerful obedience to their commands, living with them, and working under them, and for them: and so he continued till he was about thirty years of age:

Its indeed an interesting story. I wonder what you or others think of Jesus' remaining behind at Jerusalem when his parents left for Nazareth? Some unbelievers point to this as an example of a time when Jesus sinned, or at least acted irresponsibly. This of course cannot be. 

How are we to answer them? Was anybody to blame for the incident? Were his parents irresponsible because they left without making sure Jesus was in the group? When Jesus said "wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business?" was He acting in obedience to God's command to stay at Jerusalem and talk with the doctors in the temple? When he said "wist he not", does it imply that his parents should have known that he would have been staying at Jersusalem to do the Father's business? How/why should they have known?


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 2, 2005)

*My take*

This visit of Jesus to Jerusalem at this Passover, at the age of twelve, was almost certainly _in order to see the Temple authorities._ The modern Jewish rite known today as _bar mitzvah_ has ancient roots, and marks a transition to full membership in the community of faith. After this year, Jesus would have been expected to go to all the feasts _in his own capacity,_ in conformity to the law commanding all males to attend (Deut. 16:16). So, here is the rationale for an examination by the authorities.

I'm sure that for most of these examinations matters were conducted somewhat cursorily. After all, how many 12-year-olds are conversant in the fine points of doctrine? But with Jesus, the doctors were confronted with a unique individual. Perhaps they thought of him as a prodigy of sorts. In any case, Jesus was not summarily dismissed back to his family. He remained in the Temple precincts either from his own desire, or from not being released by the authorities, and continued discoursing with them, no doubt attracting a continual, and perhaps growing stream of interested (and amazed) teachers.

His parents, who erroneously assumed he was with fellow travellers when everyone packed up and left for home, had to return and search for Jesus. They went out a day's journey. They retuned a day's journey. And they spent part of the next day searching for him ("after three days"). And Jesus' response? "Why didn't you expect me to be here in the Temple?" He clearly expected them to have collected him from there prior to their departure.


----------



## blhowes (Mar 2, 2005)

Bruce,
That's about the best explanation I've heard. It makes sense.

The only part, as a parent, that's hard to relate to is Joseph and Mary leaving Jerusalem and assuming Jesus was in the company of people who made the trip. Maybe I'm an overprotective parent, but when I go on a trip, even if its in a group, I can't imagine leaving without first seeing that my boys are with us. I can't imagine going a days journey without verifying they were with us.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Mar 2, 2005)

I can appreciate your sentiments, Bob.

But we also live in an un-covenanted, godless society, very different (and more vicious) than even our own parents and grandparents lived. And children "grew up" faster in bygone days. Marriage at 14 wasn't so uncommon not too long ago. I just mean that Jesus was a mature child, in an age of early imposed obligations, and we simply have to put ourselves into their world as best we can in reading these situations.

The text says his parents assumed, and that incorrectly. It only blames them (in the last analysis) for failing to think first that Jesus was at the Temple (d'oh! headsmack).


----------

