Why did Mary not know the boy Jesus stayed behind in the temple? Luke 2:50

[markspost]

Luke 2:41-52

Passage starts out by telling us that the boy Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem and that his parents where unaware that he did so. It seems reasonable to state that Mary and Joseph believed Jesus was aware of their plans to return home, as they thought Jesus to be in the caravan.

Mary became greatly anxious when she discovered Jesus was not in the caravan. Why would Jesus stay behind without informing his mother, who was obviously was expecting Jesus to be in the caravan? If Jesus had to tend to his heavenly father’s business, surely Mary and Joseph would have stayed behind with Him, had this been communicated.

However, Jesus implies that Mary should not have been looking for Jesus (Mary should not have thought Jesus was in the caravan?), that Mary should have known Jesus was about his heavenly Father’s house/business.

Why did Mary not know the boy Jesus stayed behind in the temple? How should Mary have known this? What needs to be understood in Jesus’ words, as referred to in Luke 2:50?

Thanks

 

[Trishie]

Mary wasn’t God so she couldn’t know. Mary was a woman of faith.

Jesus was caught up in His mission, and may have responded somewhat on the impulse of the grace of knowing who He was. Remember that He was humanly a twelve-year-old-boy.

The grace for Mary, who lived so many years in faith, that her Son gave her a confirmation of who He really was, as the Angel had foretold.

The Holy Family didn’t live in a rarefied super-human manner.
Jesus is fully human and fully divine.
If God hadn’t wished Jesus to live a human life, begun as an embryo, a helpless infant, a child who head to learn skills, Jesus could have come as a mature male Personage. He didn’t need to go through the process of infancy, childhood, teen years, if God did not value ordinary human life. It is sacred in its ordinariness. All that was ordinary in the lives of Jesus and Mary, was sacred, and by conveying that, God has shown us how valuable ordinary human processes are.

Remember how at the wedding feast of Cana, Jesus said, “my time is not yet come.” If it hadn’t then, it hadn’t when He was twelve perhaps…but what a valuable moment of Jesus’ childhood, when the twelve year-old Jesus, let His mother see the deep reality of His divinity and His divine mission. It was a gift to them both;
and to us, to have this glimpse into the childhood of our Saviour.

 

[prodigalson12]

Thank you for posting this, it’s a good subject, especially due to the closeness of the times with Mary’s next feast!

Ok, it’s saying two things at once, actually more, but this is scripture, lol.

She learned in her life, just that it’s time she let him go, just as a parent let their child grow up, get an adult life of their own, in this case, it’s Jesus so his story and path was equally clear and now was the time he started. It was also for us to know, that when all else fails, being stuck out in the world, that he’s always with his Father and you can find him in his Fathers house, any time of day, by default, that is where he is at, and looking deeper, it’s saying not to be looking for him in the world, for he is not of it.

You also can take this account as to how the disciples in the sinking boat, and how Jesus rebuked the sea and winds, causing them to calm, knowing full well he is not going to perish “neither are they” as long as they trust in him, so this is teaching us this lesson in another way as well. He was teaching with authority, surely he could have mustered up the knowledge to get home without them regardless don’t you think?

 

[Orchanian]

I think this is also important because of the three days. Mary and Joseph were without Jesus for 3 days. Jesus was in the tomb for 3 days. Perhaps this was a preparation for that later separation.

 

[patrick457]

On the spiritual side of things, Mary could obviously not know where Jesus is or what Jesus thinks, without the aid of GPS or tracking devices. Being immaculately conceived does not grant you omniscience or omnipresence. She’s still human; at the time, the puzzle is still incomplete. Both Mary and Joseph already have a rough idea of what the Child is and what He would do, but there is still more that they would not fully understand until much later (cf. Luke 2:50). Such is human nature.

On the historical side of things, we must note that when the ancients say ‘family’, it means the ‘extended family’ (i.e. counting kindred that are not considered part of the nuclear family). Jesus, Mary and Joseph travelled as part of a caravan most likely being composed of other relatives, friends and acquaintances. Young pilgrims like Jesus were considered safe as long as they were in the company as a whole, so Mary and Joseph would not have bothered to check, confident that Jesus was just on the back with the other kids; it was just natural not to see one’s child for hours at a time.

Luke beautifully paints the humanity of the boy Jesus at this point: Jesus was so engaged in discussion that He probably did not realize that His parents already left without Him telling them where He was. Perhaps Jesus in His humanity thought naively that they would not leave without Him, or that if they left, they would certainly come back. After all, can a twelve year-old boy make the sixty-five mile (105 km) trek back to His home village alone and unarmed? In any case, He decided to stay put in the most likely place husband and wife could find Him in Jerusalem: the Temple.

Jesus’ reply (“Do you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”) also gives us a glimpse into the tension between the necessity felt by Him to obey His heavenly Father and the obedience which He renders His earthly parents. This passage gives us a glimpse that at age twelve Jesus is already feeling a necessity, a compulsion, to do His Father’s will. Jesus already has the call to obey God, but part of that obedience involved submission to His mother and (earthly) father:

And He went down with them and came to Nazareth, and was obedient to them; and His mother was keeping all these sayings in her heart. And Jesus kept increasing in wisdom and in stature, and in favor with God and men.

 

[NHInsider]

Luke 2:41-52

However, Jesus implies that Mary should not have been looking for Jesus (Mary should not have thought Jesus was in the caravan?), that Mary should have known Jesus was about his heavenly Father’s house/business.

Why did Mary not know the boy Jesus stayed behind in the temple? How should Mary have known this? What needs to be understood in Jesus’ words, as referred to in Luke 2:50?

Thanks

Hmm. I didn’t think Jesus’ comment (which is delightfully authentic, btw, as any mother who has raised boys will recognize) means they should have known he wasn’t going home - I think it was more of “where else would I be than here?” (in response to “We’ve looked everywhere, we were so worried!”)

 

[chaunceygardner]

As others have pointed out, that Joseph and Mary did not realize Jesus had stayed behind in Jerusalem is not that surprising. There are a couple of things that do surprise me, however. One, that Mary and Joseph did not think to look in the Temple first. And second, that they would not understand Jesus’ response to them. These make it appear that they did not fully realize who Jesus was, which is contradicted by what Mary and Joseph should have known according to the earlier narratives in Luke 1 and 2.

When reading the first two chapters of this Gospel, one could wonder whether the part of Ch 2 regarding the journey to Jeruaslem was added later, or (less likely) whether the earlier parts were added. They certainly lack continuity and agreement in their portrayal of what Mary and Joseph understood about Jesus. It appears that this story comes from a different source and was incorporated into that chapter, even though it doesn’t really fit.

Anyone have any thoughts or knowledge about this?

 

[NHInsider]

As others have pointed out, that Joseph and Mary did not realize Jesus had stayed behind in Jerusalem is not that surprising. There are a couple of things that do surprise me, however. One, that Mary and Joseph did not think to look in the Temple first. And second, that they would not understand Jesus’ response to them. These make it appear that they did not fully realize who Jesus was, which is contradicted by what Mary and Joseph should have known according to the earlier narratives in Luke 1 and 2.

I’m not sure even given what they had been told in the angelic greeting and the dream that we can blame them for not fully understanding Jesus’ nature. Even with the experience of the signs, the Passion, the Resurrection and Ascension, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it took the Church a couple of centuries to sort out the implications, and to this day the best we can do, in the end, is say “the Incarnation is a mystery.”

It is so easy for us to say, glibly (if reverently) “Son of God and Son of Mary” - but there was no precedent for this, no explicit prophecy, nothing to prepare their finite minds for this once-in-eternity reality. And in addition to two (or three, if we count Elizabeth’s) prophetic/divine statements they had 12 years of experience as the parents of a very human little boy - a Boy who must not have spent His childhood giving dramatic shows of His divinity to the neighborhood kids, since most of them grew up to reject Him and question His credentials.

 

[chaunceygardner]

I’m not sure even given what they had been told in the angelic greeting and the dream that we can blame them for not fully understanding Jesus’ nature. Even with the experience of the signs, the Passion, the Resurrection and Ascension, and the guidance of the Holy Spirit, it took the Church a couple of centuries to sort out the implications, and to this day the best we can do, in the end, is say “the Incarnation is a mystery.”

It is so easy for us to say, glibly (if reverently) “Son of God and Son of Mary” - but there was no precedent for this, no explicit prophecy, nothing to prepare their finite minds for this once-in-eternity reality. And in addition to two (or three, if we count Elizabeth’s) prophetic/divine statements they had 12 years of experience as the parents of a very human little boy - a Boy who must not have spent His childhood giving dramatic shows of His divinity to the neighborhood kids, since most of them grew up to reject Him and question His credentials.

Good points, and certainly a possibility. We have many examples of people being very slow to accept or understand what seems to be the obvious; only in hindsight do we realize how clear the “signs” were. I know it has happened to me several times.

So was the purpose of this story to show the human side of Jesus, or the divine side that was not yet outwardly apparent but awaiting the chosen time?

 

[Stylteralmaldo]

I love this episode in the Bible. It’s one of my favorites.

This is what I suppose happened:

Background information: When they started out on their journey home, Mary was perhaps with some of her close friends and family while Joseph was with another group of close friends and family. Jesus was in the group with his mother.

Hypothetical conversation:

Jesus: Mom, I would like to go and see my Father. Can I go?

Mary: Yes Jesus. Go right ahead.

Result: Mary thinks that Jesus is referring to Joseph. Of course Joseph hasn’t a clue as to what transpired since he presumed that Jesus was with Mary the whole time. Jesus is naturally surprised that Mary and Joseph didn’t know where he was particularly since he asked permission to be with His Father - who would naturally be at the Temple.

 

[spauline]

I think it is a prophecy of the conversion of the Jews.

Short tail of it:
The saint passes through three stages, the purgative, the illuminative and the unitive.

My theory is that the People of God, both of Old and New Testaments, traverse the same mysterious spiritual path HISTORICALLY.

In that vein, the three ages of the Jewish history fulfill the path of the saint, as do the Church’s. But only after the three stages do the Jews convert.

In this vein, Mary and Joseph are a type of the Jews: the Jews look for the Messiah for three great ages, and only in the third do they find Him, in the Catholic Church.

And Christ says, “Did you not know I must be about My Father’s business?”, namely, that for the three great ages that the Jews looked for the Messiah, He was busy doing His Father’s business, redeeming the Gentiles.



I have an article if anyone is interested.

 

[Nathan_Wagar]

The Jewish custom as I understand it was that when returning from the temple, all the women would travel together with the young children and males aged 12 or so and under, and all the men and older male children would travel in a separate group. Apparently the child was given a choice at around that age to travel with the men. It is entirely possible, knowing this, to deduce that the other parent thought that Jesus was traveling with the other group of relatives.

 

[markspost]

He was teaching with authority, surely he could have mustered up the knowledge to get home without them regardless don’t you think?

No doubt Jesus could have returned home without them. However, He remained behind while he knew Mary and Joseph where leaving town without him. I guess that’s what I am trying to understand. It may be proposed that Jesus remaining behind was an accident, the twelve year old “missed the boat” for one reason of another, then Mary and Joseph traveling separately, not knowing he was absent from the caravan is understandable. Otherwise, the remaining behind was a decision, an act of the will, which would need more discussion as to why. Is there any consensus on whether is was an accident or decision for Jesus to remain?

 

[prodigalson12]

No doubt Jesus could have returned home without them. However, He remained behind while he knew Mary and Joseph where leaving town without him. I guess that’s what I am trying to understand. It may be proposed that Jesus remaining behind was an accident, the twelve year old “missed the boat” for one reason of another, then Mary and Joseph traveling separately, not knowing he was absent from the caravan is understandable. Otherwise, the remaining behind was a decision, an act of the will, which would need more discussion as to why. Is there any consensus on whether is was an accident or decision for Jesus to remain?

If it was an accident, it would never be recorded because nothing within our Cannon is there frivolously, it’s there to teach, guide and instruct…

 

[markspost]

On the historical side of things, we must note that when the ancients say ‘family’, it means the ‘extended family’ (i.e. counting kindred that are not considered part of the nuclear family). Jesus, Mary and Joseph travelled as part of a caravan most likely being composed of other relatives, friends and acquaintances. Young pilgrims like Jesus were considered safe as long as they were in the company as a whole, so Mary and Joseph would not have bothered to check, confident that Jesus was just on the back with the other kids; it was just natural not to see one’s child for hours at a time.

Luke beautifully paints the humanity of the boy Jesus at this point: Jesus was so engaged in discussion that He probably did not realize that His parents already left without Him telling them where He was. Perhaps Jesus in His humanity thought naively that they would not leave without Him, or that if they left, they would certainly come back. After all, can a twelve year-old boy make the sixty-five mile (105 km) trek back to His home village alone and unarmed? In any case, He decided to stay put in the most likely place husband and wife could find Him in Jerusalem: the Temple.

That makes sense. Thanks. Understandable explanation why Jesus was not in the caravan and why he was found in the temple.

Jesus’ reply (“Do you not know that I must be in my Father’s house?”) also gives us a glimpse into the tension between the necessity felt by Him to obey His heavenly Father and the obedience which He renders His earthly parents. This passage gives us a glimpse that at age twelve Jesus is already feeling a necessity, a compulsion, to do His Father’s will. Jesus already has the call to obey God, but part of that obedience involved submission to His mother and (earthly) father:

Not sure I understand the explanation here. It is being suggested that Jesus remaining behind was not a innocent mistake?

If Mary and Joseph traveled a day before noticing Jesus was not there, then took a day to travel back, the morning after they arrived they may have looked in the temple first. So I don’t think the question was result of them looking everywhere else first.

For some reason I was coming from the perspective that Jesus’ question was more on the lines of he was called by his Heavenly Father to do something, and His parents departure and return for him where just a necessary side effect of the Fathers will. With this line of thinking, I start wondering about how His actions and response honours his father and mother.

But if Jesus was not on the caravan due to an honest 12 year old boys mistake, then it would not make sense that His response to his mothers question related to Him responding/choosing Heavenly Fathers will?

 

[markspost]

If it was an accident, it would never be recorded because nothing within our Cannon is there frivolously, it’s there to teach, guide and instruct…

Would not the cause of the situation have some bearing on the explanation provided for it? If we don’t know if Jesus remaining behind was accident or not, how are we to interpret Jesus’ response to Mary who asked, “Son, why have you done this to us?”

I can’t help but think the reason Jesus stayed behind and Mary & Joseph where not informed is material to the meaning of the response of Jesus to Mary. Of course I may well be wrong and the only connection between the two may be that I do not really understand either.