Luke Chapter 2

[justtryin]

49 And he said to them: How is it that you sought me? did you not know, that I must be about my father’s business? 50 And they understood not the word that he spoke unto them.

This is probably a silly question and oversight on my part, but what exactly did they not understand? Obviously The Blessed Mother knew of His Divinity and all that implies. Am I looking too hard?

Thanks for any help.

 

[runningdude]

Mary and Joseph were running around a busy, crowded, city looking for their Son, and He calmly tries to rationalize with them. Mother looses son in a grocery store = panic. Mother looses Son of God in an entire city = PANIC.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

When it says “understand not the word” it means that they didn’t understand what He said was a rebuke for not being able to find Him right away. In other words He was saying, “You above all people should have known right where I would be!”, and they did not understand that he was rebuking them for taking so long to find Him.

I have read also that some bible scholars think that the author is referring to the other people there not understanding his words, but that Mary and Joseph did.

 

[justtryin]

When I meditate on the 5th Joyful mystery, I can see Mary and Joseph in a panic searching for Jesus. In Mary’s mind she is probably horrified not just with the loss of her child, but also thinking ‘The Lord blessed me with this task and I have failed Him’.
THREE DAYS have gone by. Imagine the state I would be in if I were in that situation and magnify it by who knows how much!!!

I do ponder the emotional aspect of the panic, the confusion.
Although I never thought the word rebuke (perhaps that word being too harsh for me personally), I always thought of it more like ‘you should have known that THIS is the FIRST place to look for Me.’

And yet I always thought maybe there’s more to what and why they didn’t understand.
I guess I am looking too hard at it.

( I do ponder the three day reference and the honorable submission to His parents as the Commandment says. )

Thanks for your responses.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

When I meditate on the 5th Joyful mystery, I can see Mary and Joseph in a panic searching for Jesus. In Mary’s mind she is probably horrified not just with the loss of her child, but also thinking ‘The Lord blessed me with this task and I have failed Him’.
THREE DAYS have gone by. Imagine the state I would be in if I were in that situation and magnify it by who knows how much!!!

I do ponder the emotional aspect of the panic, the confusion.
Although I never thought the word rebuke (perhaps that word being too harsh for me personally), I always thought of it more like ‘you should have known that THIS is the FIRST place to look for Me.’

And yet I always thought maybe there’s more to what and why they didn’t understand.
I guess I am looking too hard at it.

( I do ponder the three day reference and the honorable submission to His parents as the Commandment says. )

Thanks for your responses.

Yes rebuke sounds harsh, but Jesus did the same thing with Mary saying, “Woman, don’t you know it is not my time…” at the wedding. It sounds harsh, but that is not the way it is meant to be read. Jesus was God, and yet obeyed His mother even when she asked Him to do something before His public ministry began…these passages not only show us the importance of Mary, but also shows us that Jesus was humble and obeyed His mother.

 

[jcrichton]

This is probably a silly question and oversight on my part, but what exactly did they not understand? Obviously The Blessed Mother knew of His Divinity and all that implies. Am I looking too hard?

Thanks for any help.

…yeah, most all of us tend to read too much (even read things into) in Scritpures (I find it amusing when titles as “theologean” and “scholar” are thrown in as proof that that person is absolutely correct)–who is Jesus? …Mary? …Joseph?

True, Mary and Joseph had a leg up on Jesus’ entity; John the Baptist in his mother’s womb got a piece of it too (“how is it that the mother of my Lord…”) which made his mother instantly part of the inner club…

But as devote as these people were (I believe that they are direct descendants of Yahweh’s Remnant) they were as much spectators as they were conscious of what it meant that Jesus was the Annointed One!

…even John the Baptist had to have an exterior sign to actually identify Christ, his relative, as the Messiah/Lamb of God.

Mary knew what the Revelation was, as did Joseph; yet, she did not know the when and how… at age twelve, Jesus was her child and, unlike the “modern” world, children were expected to go through a learning phase that Jesus simply eroded!

…remember how bent Jesus’ disciples were when the children were crowding Jesus? I’m not even a history buff, but I do believe that the standard behavior of a rabi was to have his trusted disciples keep people, specifically women and children, from coming too close into their proximity… a child, specially a young child, would be seen as insignificant and unworthy to be engaging the “masters.”

When Jesus’ parents show up not only is He engaging these learned scholars but He is demonstrating a Wisdom far beyond His age–the amazing thing? Jesus was just acting “normal.” So it comes: “my Father’s Business…”

…remember, Jesus has been their “child” for twelve years… no Temple, prophet or sage interest was risen; the child Jesus was pretty much ignored since his encounter with the shepherds and magi.

All of a sudden Jesus is speaking about His Father… and in front of the Temple… while very wise religious men were wowing and oiing as Jesus was able to not only satisfy their queries but pose deep philosophical and theological questions…

…as it had happened in the past, when Yahweh called forth a prophet he would be separated from society and immersed in a extremely religious environment–the flood gates would be running amock just as their adrenaline began to normalize at the site of Jesus being found safe and sound… I could just hear the Virgin Mary wispering to St. Joseph: “Jesus Christ, this boy is gonna be the death of me… how are we going to get Him back from the Nazarenes, now?” (…of course this is just to show how one can read into Scriptures anything that has seeming plausibility.)

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[justtryin]

Jcrichton,

Thank you for that. I should’ve pointed out that I wasn’t necessarily looking for “historical fact” or “scientific proof” of anything. I was just curious if anyone had thoughts on what or why they did not understand. I’ve thought the obvious, but wandered if there were more to it.

Although we are not bound to believe the Mystics of the Church, I do find their writings very helpful when contemplating the Mysteries of Salvation. I know they may not contain 100% fact, however I enjoy them. I find them refreshing.

Concerning Mary and direct descendants of Yahweh:
I know alot of people scoff at the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (yet they really enjoy Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of The Christ, go figure), but I believe she once said St. Anne’s ancestors came from a devout lineage of Israelites who lived a way of life inherited from the priests who carried the Ark of the Covenant. I know we are not bound to believe it as fact. But WOW what a thought.

(I think I may have read that in "The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

God Bless

 

[TimothyH]

I think it is important to ponder what the Scripture has to say to us personally. It is obviously a dialogue between a child and his parents but God put that dailogue there so we could learn something and apply it to our own lives, so that we can be made perfect and spend eternity with him. And I see the message as Eucharistic.

Then again, I see the whole Bible as Eucharistic.

I sometimes act like Jesus’ parents. I sometimes look for God everywhere except where I should really be looking for him. Mary and Joseph looked for Jesus among “their relatives and acquaintances” and I’m like that as well, trying to find God in all the wrong places. I sometimes expect God to just come along with me as I go about my own life, living my own agenda, “in the caravan.” Just like Mary and Josheph did, saying, “Why have you done this to us?” with great anxiety, I question God’s plan and his providence.

And Jesus’ reply to me in this passage is sublime. I like the way the RSV puts it…

And he said to them, “How is it that you sought me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?” (Luke 2:49)

Rather than expecting God to follow my agenda, I should be asking myself how is it that I have sought him, and if I have not really been looking in all the wrong places. I look for God everywhere except where I should be looking for him, in his Father’s house. I should be looking to the Church, to the sacraments, to worship in the Mass, and to other’ members of Christ’s Body in parish life. I should be listening to the people to whom God gave responsiblity for my spiritual health, especially the priests at my parish.

And I really mean it when I say that his message (to me at least) is Eucharistic. How is it that I have sought him? The fullest manifestion of Jesus’ presence is found sacramentally in the hands of his priests and in the tabernacles of his Father’s house. Anyway, that’s what I take out of it.

And now some Catholic will say that I’m not allowed to have a personal intepretation of scripture or that the Eucharist is worthless because it wasn’t placed on my tounge by someone who recieved holy orders. Or some Evangelical will tell me that Jesus was only speaking spiritually because his “Words are spirit and life”. And to that I’ll say, eh, whatever. It really doesn’t matter to me what anyone thinks. That’s what I take out of it.

Peace.

-Tim-

 

[justtryin]

TimothyH,
Beautiful imagery. Thank You.

 

[Bran_Stark]

This is probably a silly question and oversight on my part, but what exactly did they not understand? Obviously The Blessed Mother knew of His Divinity and all that implies.

How is this “obvious”? She certainly knew her son was the “Son of God” and hence very special, but it’s not like she had read the First Chapter of John’s Gospel.

 

[justtryin]

How is this “obvious”? She certainly knew her son was the “Son of God” and hence very special, but it’s not like she had read the First Chapter of John’s Gospel.

I hope you speak in jest otherwise it clearly wasn’t “obvious” to you. It is about contemplating the words between Jesus, Joseph and Mary and the circumstances surrounding them.

From post #7…

I should've pointed out that I wasn't necessarily looking for "historical fact" or "scientific proof" of anything. I was just curious if anyone had thoughts on what or why they did not understand. I've thought the obvious, but wandered if there were more to it.

God Bless

 

[Evan]

I hope you speak in jest otherwise it clearly wasn’t “obvious” to you. It is about contemplating the words between Jesus, Joseph and Mary and the circumstances surrounding them.

I’m not sure but justtryin is saying, but I agree with Bran.

Who is this Jesus?
Mary knew he was the messiah, but what were the attributes of a messiah?
He was the son of God, but so are the angels and I think the Jews were sometimes referred to as ‘son of God’ also.
Mary was a monotheistic Jew and she knew there is only 1 God, Jesus could not be Him.
The understanding of the trinity did not occur at Nazareth.

She had to Trust, have Faith, and Love Him. It would all be revealed in time, but not when He was 12. He had never even performed a miracle nor shown His authority over nature.

 

[JonathonofOhio]

Since this thread keeps going on, I’ll interject again and make this as clear as possible:

That “they did not understand” means that the people around them didn’t understand what was being said (not Mary and Jospeh). The sentence does not sufficiently imply that the author is talking about Mary and Joesph not understanding since there are clearly other people present and hearing the conversation. It is logical to conclude the author is referring to the other people that Jesus was speaking with prior to Mary and Joseph showing up. They did not understand at that time that he was the Messiah and had suddenly shown up in the temple as prophesied in

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 3:1[/BIBLEDRB]

This statement does not reflect what Mary and Joseph may have or may not have known at the time. It is simply showing that people did not recognize the Messiah when he first showed up in the temple even though they were all astounded by his knowledge.

 

[justtryin]

I’m not sure but justtryin is saying

What I was saying is contemplate the situation the Holy Family found themselves in.
I meant no disrespect to Bran, but his response seemed flippant. More an attempt at humor. It lacked depth. (I had hoped he would read the surrounding passages and leave another thought).

You on the other hand did seem to get what I meant.
Incorporating Mary’s thought pattern as it may have been formed by her Jewish upbringing.
This brings another angle in which to view the situation.

There was a point – although it may not have been so obvious.

Runningdude brought the personal, the emotional;
JonathonofOhio, the discipline, the corrective action;
jcrichton added the wisdom of the Child;
TimothyH, the search for the Child as it relates to us today;
And Evan you brought the thinking of the Mother as it may have developed through
ancesrtal formation.

So many people read the Bible authoritatively ( as they should ), but it seems many forget we should also contemplate and meditate upon the Holy Scriptures.

God Bless

 

[ryanoneil]

This is probably a silly question and oversight on my part, but what exactly did they not understand? Obviously The Blessed Mother knew of His Divinity and all that implies. Am I looking too hard?

Thanks for any help.

They didn’t understand that he was instructing them on how their role as parents must be subordinate to the will of the divine Father. Then he honors them by being an obedient son.

 

[jcrichton]

Jcrichton,

Thank you for that. I should’ve pointed out that I wasn’t necessarily looking for “historical fact” or “scientific proof” of anything. I was just curious if anyone had thoughts on what or why they did not understand. I’ve thought the obvious, but wandered if there were more to it.

Although we are not bound to believe the Mystics of the Church, I do find their writings very helpful when contemplating the Mysteries of Salvation. I know they may not contain 100% fact, however I enjoy them. I find them refreshing.

Concerning Mary and direct descendants of Yahweh:
I know alot of people scoff at the visions of Blessed Anne Catherine Emmerich (yet they really enjoy Mel Gibson’s movie The Passion of The Christ, go figure), but I believe she once said St. Anne’s ancestors came from a devout lineage of Israelites who lived a way of life inherited from the priests who carried the Ark of the Covenant. I know we are not bound to believe it as fact. But WOW what a thought.

(I think I may have read that in "The Life of the Blessed Virgin Mary).

God Bless

…sorry justtrying… sometimes I’m charged and attempt to cover as much as I can on the topics–I’ve had encounters with many non-Catholics and non-Believers so my guard is usually up; I also tend to write as though there might be more than one reader (the poster and other visitor/s–I was totally on point at least on two occasions) so I seek to cover my response with as much pertinent matter as possible; though I never judge others, I tend to be brutal on myself (thinking on both issues: ‘did I cover the question?’ and ‘did I refute any anti-Catholic-Christian sentiments that might be read into the thread/post?’)… please accept my apologies, I did not mean to step on any toes!

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[justtryin]

…please accept my apologies, I did not mean to step on any toes!

Trust me, no apologies necessary. You response was dead on. Very few understood what I was getting at. I wasn’t trying to argue any points or define new information. I was seeking contemplative thoughts on the passage. When you ponder these passages, what do you envision? What and why do you think they did not understand?
I was seeking opinion not dogma. I think that is where people misunderstood. I also was purposely vague in asking the question at first.

O well.

But I did like your repsonse. Especially how Jewish traditional thought would be taken aback by the wisdom of this Child, who "would be seen as insignificant and unworthy to be engaging the “masters.”

Again, no apologies necessary. Loved your insight of the situation of the Holy Family.

*** Also, ryanoneil, love the addition of Christ instructing the Parents on subordination to the Will of the Father then submitting Himself to obedience to His Parents.

Thanks to you both!

 

[jcrichton]

I’m not sure but justtryin is saying, but I agree with Bran.

Who is this Jesus?
Mary knew he was the messiah, but what were the attributes of a messiah?
He was the son of God, but so are the angels and I think the Jews were sometimes referred to as ‘son of God’ also.
Mary was a monotheistic Jew and she knew there is only 1 God, Jesus could not be Him.
The understanding of the trinity did not occur at Nazareth.

She had to Trust, have Faith, and Love Him. It would all be revealed in time, but not when He was 12. He had never even performed a miracle nor shown His authority over nature.

…I agree with part of your post… even those who had prophetic words were not fully knowledgeable of what would actually transpire with the Messiah; there were many general hints that had to be not only undestood within the context of Judaism but also had to be assisted through Divine intervention (shepherds and magi as perfect examples); we have the benefit of Sacred Writings and the Revelations done by the Holy Spirit during the formation of the Church after her inception… but, as in the Old Covenant (Old Testament) it is the Holy Spirit that actually Reveals to man the Way…

The Virgin Mary and her relative, Elizabeth (as well as a few others) were truly “touched” by the Holy Spirit… they received a greater Revelation than that afforded to even the religious elite (check the magi trek on the Quest for the King of the Jews and Elizabeth’s “Salutation” to Mary); it is this Divine intervension that allowed Mary, and a few others to undestand that Jesus was God ("…how is it that the mother of my Lord…"); the problem is that, as mere human, they could not fully grasp what it meant–they only had what their minds could cope with (as Joseph not proceeding with his plans to leave Nazareth in the middle of the night in an effort to protect Mary and her Child) and they were true to their limited understanding only because of their humble obedience to Yahweh.

Remember that those of the Way (Remnant of Israel) would marry only within their clan in an attempt to be the vessel that would provide the Coming of the Messiah–so this “Messiah” thing was quite a big thing (expected and respected and, I would dare say, even aspired to be able to “be” the parents of that special Child–yet, for the most part, they were far from undestanding how and when the Messiah would come and what, if any, changes He would bring forth…

…so this tiny click arose where Mary was known as the “one” who carried the “Messiah” and evey single person that belonged to that click was in humble obedience and fellowship with God’s Holy Spirit; true, the revelation that God is One Holy Trinity had not given nor was it conceived in anyone’s mind at that time (I believe); but the fact that there’s only One God, and One Lord, that is Omnipotent and Omnipresent did not escape the religious Hebrew that were part of the Remnant whcih Yahweh kept for Himself… and it is on this level of understanding that the Scriptures are taken by Mary (and others) as she does not question the Archangel’s revelation of the Power of God’s Holy Spirit being the Origins of her Conception!

It is the Holy Spirit (as put forth by St. Paul: “we do not know how to Pray, the Holy Spirit Prays to the Father/God in our behalf…” some paraphrasing, perhaps) Who aides these few Believers into understanding the Incarnation and the reality of the Immanuel, Messiah, among them.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[jcrichton]

Since this thread keeps going on, I’ll interject again and make this as clear as possible:

That “they did not understand” means that the people around them didn’t understand what was being said (not Mary and Jospeh). The sentence does not sufficiently imply that the author is talking about Mary and Joesph not understanding since there are clearly other people present and hearing the conversation. It is logical to conclude the author is referring to the other people that Jesus was speaking with prior to Mary and Joseph showing up. They did not understand at that time that he was the Messiah and had suddenly shown up in the temple as prophesied in

[BIBLEDRB]Malachi 3:1[/BIBLEDRB]

This statement does not reflect what Mary and Joseph may have or may not have known at the time. It is simply showing that people did not recognize the Messiah when he first showed up in the temple even though they were all astounded by his knowledge.

…but you must truly take the text out of context in order to make it relevant to Jesus’ previous engagement with the religious–as well as make a backwards leap in order to place any spectators as the subject of the narrator’s observation (remember, the sources must be either Mary (which is the higher possibility), Joseph, the religious, a keen spectator or two) the comment outside of the immediate context (Jesus’ reply to Mary’s query) seems arbitrary.

Maran atha!

Angel

 

[PJM]

This is probably a silly question and oversight on my part, but what exactly did they not understand? Obviously The Blessed Mother knew of His Divinity and all that implies. Am I looking too hard?

Thanks for any help.

FROM: Haydock1859.tripod.com Catholic Commentary

Ver. 49. I must be about the things that are my Father’s? By these words he shewed, that not St. Joseph, but only God, was his father.

Ver. 50. They understood not, &c. That is, knew not when, or by what means, Christ designed to make himself known to the world.

GREAT Question

God Bless,
Pat