Jesus. Instead, the author focuses first on what Jesus is doing, to make sure that an important point is not overshadowed by the emotions of the reunion. Jesus is engaged in active conversation with a group of teachers, listening to them and asking questions in return (2:46b). They are probably discussing the fine points of the law. Even at twelve, Jesus impresses the teachers with his acumen and depth of understanding (cf. 2:40). The teachers of the law do not know that Jesus is the Son of God and Israel’s Messiah, but the readers do. Isaiah speaks of the shoot from the stump of Jesse as being imbued with God’s Spirit of wisdom, understanding, counsel, and knowledge (Isa 11:1–4).72 While these teachers may find this precocious young man delightful, next time Jesus is shown to be in discussion with other learned elites at the temple, those teachers will not be amused (19:47—21:38).
An astute reader may wonder how Jesus managed for two days on his own. Was he allowed to stay at the temple? Did someone take him in for the night? Did he think about his family? Was he scared? These questions may very well have crossed Mary’s and Joseph’s minds while searching for Jesus. But when they are finally reunited with him, the first thing that comes out of his mother’s mouth is a note of rebuke: “Child, why have you treated us like this? Look, your father and I have been searching for you in great anxiety!” (2:48).73 It is Mary who speaks on behalf of both of them. Luke continues to de-emphasize Joseph’s role even though he is acknowledged to be Mary’s husband and Jesus’ adoptive earthly father.
Jesus’ response addresses the issue of who his father is and to whom he owes primary allegiance. His first counter-question, “Why were you searching for me?” (2:49a), may be heard as an expression of genuine surprise or a tinge of gentle reproach. Without the tone of his voice, it is difficult to tell if the young Jesus is really that oblivious of Mary’s and Joseph’s parental concern.
The second counter-question is more telling, “Did you not know that I must be en tois tou patros mou” (2:49b)? The word-for-word translation of en tois tou patros mou is “in/among/about the [something] of my father.” Both the preposition en and the dative article tois are grammatically ambiguous, especially when the noun that follows the article is not provided. There are three options. First, most English versions use “in my Father’s house” because Jesus is physically found in the temple precincts.74 The temple is where God’s presence resides, hence the house of God (Ps 11:4; Hab 2:20). Jesus is asking his parents a rhetorical question: “Isn’t it obvious that of all the places in Jerusalem I ought to be right here in the temple?” Jesus’ answer states the obvious but does not explain why he did what he did. The second option, “I must be about the affairs of my Father,”75 implies that the discussion with the teachers of the law is part and parcel of Jesus being involved in God’s work and mission. This rendering enhances the first option without contradicting it. Jesus is in the temple engaged in conversations about God’s law with the officers of the temple. This makes sense because as Israel’s Messiah he will be embodying God’s salvation and interpreting the precepts of God to God’s people. There is yet a third possibility: “I must be among those who belong to my Father.” While this translation is grammatically acceptable, the meaning is too vague to be useful.
I suggest we take advantage of the grammatical ambiguity and allow for a nuanced interpretation of Jesus’ answer that combines the first two options. On one level, Jesus has to be found in the temple because this is where he is doing God’s work, engaging the teachers in the matters of the law. On another level, Jesus is compelled to align himself with the affairs and purposes of his heavenly Father, even at the cost of causing emotional upheaval for his earthly parents. The Greek verb, dei (“it is necessary”), is frequently used in Luke’s Gospel to denote a divine necessity that something must happen as God’s plan unfolds.76
Their knowledge of Jesus’ true origin notwithstanding, Mary and Joseph still have a hard time grasping the implications of their son’s words and actions (2:50). This incident marks a needed demarcation of Jesus’ loyalties. Priority must go to God the Father through whose Spirit Jesus was conceived in Mary’s womb. In light of God’s fatherhood, the place of Mary and Joseph must be relativized. Lest Jesus be misinterpreted as a smart-alecky and insubordinate young man, in the very next verse Luke assures his readers that Jesus returns to Nazareth with his parents and remains obedient to them (2:51a). Nevertheless, Mary continues her ruminations on all these matters, first the words of Simeon about the fate of her child (2:34–35), and now Jesus’ own assertion of God’s preeminent role as his Father, over and above that of her husband Joseph (2:51b).
One final summary statement brings the infancy narrative to a close. Similar to the earlier statement in 2:40, Jesus is said to grow in wisdom and in hēlikia, which can be translated either as “age” or “stature” (2:52).77 The former coheres with the increase in wisdom along the lines of his becoming “older and wiser,” whereas the latter echoes verse 40, “The child grew and became strong.” Either way, the resulting picture is the same. Jesus matures in body and in mind, and enjoys favor with God and with people. This trajectory will continue for almost two decades as the readers turn the page to chapter 3. John, now an adult, reappears on stage as the forerunner of the Messiah.
47. See p. 22.
48. See Kuhn 2001: 38–49.
49. Ferguson 2003: 26–30.
50. Grant 1975: 52–80.
51. An example of a Myrian inscription: “Divine Augustus Caesar, Son of a God, Imperator of land and sea, the Benefactor and Savior of the whole world” (Green 1997: 125).
52. Brown (1993: 412–18) provides a thorough discussion of the historical problem. Rist (2005: 489–91) postulates that Luke confused Quirinius with Quintilius Varus. A reference to the latter would have set the date of Jesus’ birth around 6 BCE, in line with the Matthean account given that Herod died in 4 BCE.
53. Garland 2012: 117–19.
54. “The city of David” can also point to Jerusalem (or Mount Zion), the capital from which King David ruled (2 Sam 5:7; 2 Chr 5:2).
55. Green 1997: 129; Marshall 1978: 107.
56. Harris 2012: 18–20.
57. Ibid., 27–30.
58. The title Kyrios (“Lord”) is applied to YHWH in 1:6, 9, 11, 15–16, 25, 28, 32, 38, 45–46, 58, 68, and to Jesus in 1:17, 43, 76. The title Sotēr (“Savior”) is applied to YHWH in 1:47, and to Jesus in 1:69 and 2:11.
59. Verbrugge 2008: 301–11.
60.
