What's new
By:
Filters
Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Mary and Joseph's "Senior Moment"

B

BradtheImpaler

Guest
We are all familiar with the story in Luke of how Mary and Joseph lost track of the 12 year old Jesus and eventually found him having a theological discussion with learned Jews in the temple at Jerusalem. When asked why he had tarried behind while they had left the city, he says -

"Did you not know I had to be about my Fathers's business" (Luke.2:49) (or, "in my Father's house", depending on the translation used)

It is Mary and Joseph's reaction to this statement that is incomprehensible...

"But they did not understand the statement he had made to them" (Luke.2:50)

An angel had previously appeared to both Mary and Joseph and explained how she would give birth to the Messiah. They knew full well (according the the VB account) that Jesus was not sired by Joseph but by God Himself. Can anyone explain how it is that they "did not understand" Jesus when he told them he was in the temple because he "had to about my Father's business/in my father's house"?

Who was Jesus' father? Surely Mary and Joseph knew? Had they forgotten a miracle of this magnitude in 12 years? Or does it make more sense that the VB account was a latter addition to the text - the result of a growing legend about Jesus which developed afterwards?
 
Luke 2:25 Now there was a man named Simeon who lived in Jerusalem. He was a righteous man and very devout. He was filled with the Holy Spirit, and he eagerly expected the Messiah to come and rescue Israel. 26 The Holy Spirit had revealed to him that he would not die until he had seen the Lord's Messiah. 27 That day the Spirit led him to the Temple. So when Mary and Joseph came to present the baby Jesus to the Lord as the law required, 28 Simeon was there. He took the child in his arms and praised God, saying,

29 "Lord, now I can die in peace! As you promised me,30 I have seen the Savior 31 you have given to all people.32 He is a light to reveal God to the nations,and he is the glory of your people Israel!" 33 Joseph and Mary were amazed at what was being said about Jesus.
Click to expand...

The above is the FIRST senior moment Mary and Joseph had, Brad. They looked at Simeon praising God on account of Jesus and saying “He is the glory of your people Israel†and wondered “WOW! ..what is it that is being said about our baby??? ..this is amazingâ€Â

Hardly a kind of expression that you expect from the folks who have already heard that news from an “angel†and experienced the virgin birth.

Jesus then expected them to know that He needed to be about His Father in heaven’s business and He promptly asked them so "Did you not know I had to be about my Fathers's business" (Luke.2:49) But they did not understand the statement he had made to them" (Luke.2:50)

Yup that went right over the top of their heads. How can they be anything but clueless about what Jesus was about if God Himself sent an angel to confirm the virgin birth to them and they experienced it?
 
Who was Jesus' father? Surely Mary and Joseph knew?
Click to expand...

They knew that Jesus was from God, but I don't think they fully comprehended Jesus' relationship with God the Father. And legally Joseph was his father so they also could have misunderstood the reference because certainly Jesus called Joseph father also.

But Jesus later elaborates in his ministry:

"And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
"David himself said in the Holy Spirit,
'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET."' (Mark 12:35-36)
"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. " (Matthew 22:45-46)

You can read all the parallel accounts of his teaching on that here: (Matthew 22:41-46 ; Mark 12:35-37; Luke 20:41-44)
 
Let me offer what may be a tad of insight into this seeming inconsistency.

How many times have we forgotten something that, at the time of the event, seemed to be the MOST important moment of our lives?

Perhaps Mary and Joseph had NOT forgotten, but the actual importance had been forgotten for the moment. We have little information on the childhood of Jesus, (unless we refer to the apocrapha). How easy would it be to simply begin to accept Jesus as 'just their child' after eight or ten years, thirteen? In other words, when they were first informed of their son's future purpose, it was undoubtably OVERWHELMING. But after his birth and after much time raising him with perhaps little other communication concerning his being the messiah, wouldn't it be relatively easy to 'stop' looking at him as something SO special and simply accept him as their child? And if this were the possible case, it is very easy to understand how his statement concerning his Father could have been misunderstood, (for the moment that it was stated).

I mean, come on guys, if Mary and Joseph had been completely convinced of EXACTLY WHO Jesus was, why would they have been worried to begin with. Wouldn't they have KNOWN that the Son of God could be in NO trouble that His TRUE Father was unable to protect Him from? See where I'm going with this. They were HUMAN just like you and I. Filled with the same fears and doubts that we are. Jesus WAS their child. And like ANY parents, they loved him and feared for his safety like parents do. And when one is upset, much of what may be offered at the moment is misunderstood often for the simple excitement of the moment.

We have the entire story to look back upon as we please. Those that lived at the time were NOT priviledged with such a luxury. And we don't have any other information concerning their confusion. As far as we know, two minutes later Mary could have said to Joseph, "Oh, I get it..................'' We are simply not privy to such information but that doesn't mean that it's not what happened. I am quite sure ALSO that when jesus turned the water into wine that His mother was then TOTALLY reminded of His purpose and nature.

MEC
 
cybershark5886 said:
They knew that Jesus was from God, but I don't think they fully comprehended Jesus' relationship with God the Father. And legally Joseph was his father so they also could have misunderstood the reference because certainly Jesus called Joseph father also.

But Jesus later elaborates in his ministry:

"And Jesus began to say, as He taught in the temple, "How is it that the scribes say that the Christ is the son of David?
"David himself said in the Holy Spirit,
'THE LORD SAID TO MY LORD,
"SIT AT MY RIGHT HAND,
UNTIL I PUT YOUR ENEMIES BENEATH YOUR FEET."' (Mark 12:35-36)
"If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?" No one was able to answer Him a word, nor did anyone dare from that day on to ask Him another question. " (Matthew 22:45-46)
Click to expand...

I have used the above scripture to believe in the virgin birth myself cybershark (and by no means have I cancelled it out totally ..I find myself on the fence about this issue). But if you follow the logic in the above scripture alone you can see Jesus just seemed to have debunked a myth about who the messiah is a descendant of?

1. How is it that the scribes say that Christ is the son of David?
2. If David then calls Him 'Lord,' how is He his son?

If you take the above two questions to their logical conclusion it definitely seems like the prophecy about the Messiah was grossly misinterpreted. Then why do most Christians find the need to connect Jesus back to David if Jesus Himself denies this link? Why bother even giving the genealogies of Jesus and connect Him back to David if this part of the “Messiah is David’s son†prophecy was miscalculated by the scribes?

I do not know if the following would be an apt (uneducated) explanation but I give it for your perusal.
In the same chapter verse 18 onwards, Jesus just had a discussion about resurrection with those who did not believe that there was a resurrection.

Now if Jesus was indeed David’s son without the virgin birth, then how could Jesus be called lord by David? The key is resurrection, Jesus is the first fruit of resurrection, and through Jesus will David find his salvation, now in this resurrection can not David aptly call Jesus his lord? May be resurrection being true was what the main point of the discourse was and not about the virgin birth since resurrection was the point of discussion just some verses ago?

I might be totally off though.
 
Imagican said:
I mean, come on guys, if Mary and Joseph had been completely convinced of EXACTLY WHO Jesus was, why would they have been worried to begin with.
Click to expand...
Angel to Mary:
Luke 1:29 Confused and disturbed, Mary tried to think what the angel could mean. 30 "Don't be frightened, Mary," the angel told her, "for God has decided to bless you! 31 You will become pregnant and have a son, and you are to name him Jesus. 32 He will be very great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give him the throne of his ancestor David. 33 And he will reign over Israel forever; his Kingdom will never end!"

Angel to Joseph:
Matthew 1: 20 As he considered this, he fell asleep, and an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream. "Joseph, son of David," the angel said, "do not be afraid to go ahead with your marriage to Mary. For the child within her has been conceived by the Holy Spirit. 21 And she will have a son, and you are to name him Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins." 22 All of this happened to fulfill the Lord's message through his prophet:

I am pretty sure Joseph and Mary talked about their angelic encounters if indeed they were true. And if the virgin birth is not “convincing†enough, over the direct encounter with angles about what Jesus EXACTLY was to Joseph and Mary, I have no clue what else would convince them.

There is a very peculiar verse, Luke 2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.

The sayings that Mary kept in heart were the sayings of Simeon Luke 2:25-35 and sayings of Anna Luke 2:36-38. Why does she have to keep these sayings in her heart like it was news to her, if indeed these were already prophesied by the angel to her at Jesus’ birth? Did she forget them? Which seems highly unlikely.

I am still researching the issue so just letting you know I have'nt made up my mind either way about the virgin birth.
 
TanNinety said:
Brad, Should I stand by to be impaled here or the thread is what it is about? :lol:
Click to expand...

No, you don't get "impaled" :) That is reserved for those who "know it all" and are beyond the point of questioning or admitting to having any doubts about what they have believed.
 
moment

It would seem to me that this passage implies that Mary and Joseph, though knowing full well Jesus was special and from God, simply didn't know what to expect from Him. They probably spent a great deal of time wondering about what exactly his ministry was to be, and how it was to be accomplished.

Over the course of twelve years doubtless Mary and Joseph had made a very large number of speculations about Jesus' future. They simply may have not known what to of make Jesus here, and interpreted this action as disobedience, that was most likely very out of character for Him.
 
Re: moment

Latin Rite Catholic said:
It would seem to me that this passage implies that Mary and Joseph, though knowing full well Jesus was special and from God, simply didn't know what to expect from Him. They probably spent a great deal of time wondering about what exactly his ministry was to be, and how it was to be accomplished.

Over the course of twelve years doubtless Mary and Joseph had made a very large number of speculations about Jesus' future. They simply may have not known what to of make Jesus here, and interpreted this action as disobedience, that was most likely very out of character for Him.
Click to expand...

:sleeping:

Sorry LRC, but that is weak. He said he had to be about his "Father's business" / in his Father's house" and they did not understand what he meant by his Father. Why not? How could they not understand this if they knew his literal Father was God? But if his biological father was Joseph, in the original story, then, and only then, does it make sense.
 
Re: moment

BradtheImpaler said:
Latin Rite Catholic said:
It would seem to me that this passage implies that Mary and Joseph, though knowing full well Jesus was special and from God, simply didn't know what to expect from Him. They probably spent a great deal of time wondering about what exactly his ministry was to be, and how it was to be accomplished.

Over the course of twelve years doubtless Mary and Joseph had made a very large number of speculations about Jesus' future. They simply may have not known what to of make Jesus here, and interpreted this action as disobedience, that was most likely very out of character for Him.
Click to expand...

:sleeping:

Sorry LRC, but that is weak. He said he had to be about his "Father's business" / in his Father's house" and they did not understand what he meant by his Father. Why not? How could they not understand this if they knew his literal Father was God? But if his biological father was Joseph, in the original story, then, and only then, does it make sense.
Click to expand...

and even then they should have known....I personally believe that Jesus was being groomed for the role....taught the Torah from birth as every Jewish boy had been.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top