If it were not for today’s passage in Luke’s Gospel, we would not have any report about Jesus’ life from the time when he was about 4, when Joseph and Mary returned with him from Egypt, to the time when he was about 30, when he was baptized by John.

This is the first time we see Jesus as a contributor to the action in the narrative. Till now he was a baby or a toddler, taken around by Joseph and Mary. But here we see him do things of his own accord and say things of his own.

It is important to pause and recognize that one thing that distinguishes the Christian approach to the canon of scripture is the way in which there has been a strong opposition to fanciful stories about Jesus as a child. There are many so-called Gospels which contain stories of Jesus as a child. In these, Jesus does various miracles. But for the most part he does them to prove a point or the defend himself. In other words, he does them for purely personal reasons, something that the Jesus of the canonical Gospels refuses to do.

The church has rejected these Gospels precisely because the portrayal of Jesus in them differs greatly from what we see in the canonical Gospels, in which Jesus does miracles only to benefit others and not to defend himself.

Our text for today is rich in the extreme. In a matter of a mere 12 verses Luke packs so much into the text that we will not be able to cover all issues. 

First, the incident happened when Jesus was 12 years old. For a Jewish boy, the 13th year was a critical year. It was the year in which he would be instructed intensively in the Torah. In Christian terms, this was the year when he would go for catechism classes. At the end of the classes, he would go through the bar mitzvah ceremony and become fully accountable for his actions under the Torah.

The rabbis were particularly open to discussing matters of Torah with 12 year old boys. So this should not be taken as something strange. I can imagine Jesus wanting to discuss things in earlier years, but not being able to simply because he was not 12 yet. But as soon as he was 12, he managed to get a hearing and discussed with the teachers. 

Second, having completed the Passover ceremonies, Mary and Joseph leave Jerusalem. The fact that it was a whole day before they became concerned about Jesus indicates that Jesus must have been a reasonably reliable boy. Otherwise, Mary and Joseph would either have been worried sooner or would have not left without ensuring he was with them.

Third, when they realized that Jesus was not with their company, Mary and Joseph return to Jerusalem. Luke tells us that they searched for three days before finding him. Three days is a long time. Jerusalem was, by no means, a small town. But neither was it a huge sprawling city. 

Now Jesus did not live there. He would have known very few places in Jerusalem. Only a handful of places would have among those he had visited before. Perhaps Mary and Joseph had friends and relatives with whom they stayed when they made their annual trip to Jerusalem. Perhaps they ate at some restaurant. Perhaps they bought provisions at a market. Whatever the places Jesus was familiar with, it seems unlikely that a search would take as long as three days. So why did it?

For Mary and Joseph, very likely the temple only served one purpose. It was a place where they could offer their annual sacrifice. They had already offered their sacrifice this year and so it never struck them that Jesus might go there. After all, what would be the point? So they probably looked at the usual places and perhaps also some not so usual places. And probably looked at all these places multiple times.

Can you imagine their relief when they finally found him? I mean, what had been going through their minds during those three days? “Whoops! We’ve gone and misplaced the Messiah!” They would have been more than relieved when they found him.

Fourth, like most parents, Mary’s first reaction is to complain. “Why have you done this? Why did you put us through such a hard time?” I’m sure that her most heartfelt thought was, “Thank God you are safe!” But what came out of her mouth was, “Why did you do this?” This is not a disapproval of what the child had done. It is rather the disbelief that the child could have not thought about his parents – parents whose first and last thought would have been for their child.

“How could you have done something without thinking of how worried we would have been?” That is Mary’s question.

Mary also tells Jesus how he had inconvenienced both Mary and Joseph. “Your father and I have been searching.” Not just his mother, but also his father. Both of us were worried sick.

We would normally expect an apology for a response. But this is not Jesus’ response. Rather, he says two things that completely change the tone of the conversation and our understanding of this passage. 

Last Sunday, we looked at Simeon’s prophecy concerning Jesus. He had told Mary and Joseph that Jesus would be the reason for a piercing of their souls. The first thing Jesus says has a direct bearing on Simeon’s prophecy.

When Mary tells Jesus, “Your father and I have been anxiously searching for you,” Jesus’ reply is, “Why were you searching for me? Didn’t you know I had to be doing the things of my Father?” To Mary’s words, “your father,” Jesus responds with the words, “my Father.”

Jesus is not saying that Joseph was not his father. Rather, he was saying that there was a relationship that went beyond what he and Joseph had. And that relationship was the one filled with more urgency. 

But to Mary and Joseph, this would have seemed like a rejection of their parenthood. Quite rightly, Luke tells us that they did not understand what Jesus was saying. They did not understand that there was a higher calling that he had to respond to. No one could fault them. The ten commandments themselves include the command to honor one’s parents. But in Mary’s eyes, Jesus had hurt her and Joseph. And now he was saying that Joseph did not have the authority as his father.

We could also come to such a conclusion if we didn’t read the text carefully. This is why Luke makes it a point to tell us that, after this incident, Jesus went home with Mary and Joseph and was obedient to them. It is not the case that Jesus was a cocky pre-teen, who was being a rebellious child. The fact that Mary and Joseph were not concerned about him for a whole day indicates, as I mentioned earlier, that he was quite likely a very reliable and well behaved boy.

And the fact that he is subsequently obedient to his parents also points to the fact that this was a special situation in which the compulsion laid on Jesus by his heavenly Father, superseded all other compulsions.

This gets us to the second thing Jesus tells Mary and Joseph. Not only does he respond to Mary’s “your father” with his “my Father” but also he says that he had to be doing the things of his Father. It seems as though there is a conspiracy among English translations. Almost without exception, they use the phrase ‘my Father’s house’ as though Jesus is speaking about the fact that he was in the temple, even though there is no word for ‘house’ in the text. Quite literally, the text is ‘my Father’s things’ and this actually gives a better understanding of the passage.

In other words, Jesus was there doing the things of his Father.  Something special and critical had happened that day. He needed to be there for some purpose. This wasn’t him just wanting to hang on in Jerusalem. Rather, something extremely important had happened, which was a direct consequence of his being there.

Luke tells us that Jesus was sitting with the teachers, listening to them and asking them questions. Luke also tells us that everyone who heard Jesus was amazed. We who are favorably disposed to Jesus that this amazement to be positive. But this need not be so. I am often amazed at the way some people drive. I am often amazed at how flexible time seems to be in India.

Were those who heard Jesus amazed in a similar way? Were they disbelievingly amazed at Jesus’ perspective on things and his way of looking at the scriptures?

We misunderstand the text if we fail to remember that Jesus had come to do battle. He was on a mission to destroy evil and sin. When the Israelites were preparing to cross the river Jordan into the promised land, Moses had sent scouts to check up on the people they were about to attack. This is standard military tactic, nothing new. If you wish to win a battle, you must know what you are up against. But at the same time, if a spy is caught, the mission is ruined. A surveillance mission must necessarily be clandestine. And I think this is what was happening here.

When Jesus was fully grown, people had already come to know him and recognize him. We often hear people ask, “Isn’t this the son of Mary?” That would have been too late a time for any surveillance to be done.

But when he was 12 was ideal. It was the year in which Jewish boys were anyway preparing for their bar mitzvah ceremonies. It was the year in which they were encouraged to ask questions. No one would have been alerted to the activities of one 12 year old boy who asked too many questions. 

By Jesus’ own words we realize that he had stayed back in Jerusalem to do his Father’s work. Jesus parallels the Old Testament figure of Joshua. Joshua leads the people into the salvation of the promised land. But before that, he was a spy sent into enemy territory to understand what they were up against. In the same way, Jesus would pave the way of salvation through his ministry when he was in his thirties. But before that, he was a spy sent into the temple to understand what he would be later facing.

In his discussions with the teachers in the temple, he would have understood how exclusivist Jewish faith had become, to the point of denying salvation to the Gentiles. He would have understood how various customs had been introduced so as to circumvent the requirements of the Torah. He would have understood how the Old Testament concern for social justice had given way to expressions of personal piety. And he would have witnessed the money-grabbing trading happening in the temple courts.

In his discussions, he may have presented a more inclusive view of Yahweh’s work in the world. He may have contested traditions that circumvented the Torah. And he may have asked about God’s concern for the downtrodden. And his hearers may have laughed at his concerns, amazed that someone could be so naive as this 12 year old boy.

And Jesus would have gone home with Mary and Joseph after this incident, now fully aware of what he was facing. His Father’s work was not going to be easy. During the course of the next 18 years or so, he would have steeled himself for what lay ahead. 

He would have come to the conclusion that doing his Father’s work would bring him up against many of the Jewish traditions. He would have come to the conclusion that doing his Father’s work could end only in one way – with his death.

We focus on Jesus’ subsequent ministry because much of the Gospels focus there. Only this incident in Luke gives us a glimpse of what happened in Jesus’ silent years. We remember easily the time when Jesus drove out traders from the temple. We forget easily that this was not the first time Jesus came of his own accord into the temple. There was a first time when, as Malachi puts it, “The Lord, whom you seek, will suddenly come into his temple.” This account in Luke tells us about that first visitation.