Did Jesus Dishonor His Earthly Parents?

[ktn4eg]

Luke 2:41-51 records the familiar account of Jesus when He was 12 YO about His visit to the temple at Jerusalem.

I've often wondered if Jesus could be charged of dishonoring His earthly parents by not telling them where He was so that they wouldn't have had to back track to Jerusalem after three days to find Him debating with the doctors in the temple.

What say ye?

 

[Iconoclast]

Luke 2:41-51 records the familiar account of Jesus when He was 12 YO about His visit to the temple at Jerusalem.

I've often wondered if Jesus could be charged of dishonoring His earthly parents by not telling them where He was so that they wouldn't have had to back track to Jerusalem after three days to find Him debating with the doctors in the temple.

What say ye?

No

26For such an high priest became us, who is holy, harmless, undefiled, separate from sinners, and made higher than the heavens;

49And he said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business? [/QUOTE]

38For I came down from heaven, not to do mine own will, but the will of him that sent me.

He was ....SENT...by the Father.to accomplish all that was ordained....You must view anything else in scripture in Jesus life with this thought in mind...or like Peter telling Jesus not to go to the cross...we will drift into sin ...because we miss the big picture.

Look up the Divine.....must....I must go to Jerusalem, I must abide at your house, ye must be born again.

 

[OldRegular]

No! NO! A thousand times NO! If He has dishonored his parents he would have sinned!

Ephsians 6:2 Honour thy father and mother; (which is the first commandment with promise)

 

[Salty]

Not a great analogy but

When I was in Germany I supervised troops in Alpha Company. When I went to the field, I also had some troops from Bravo Company attached to me.

I had one troop go back into Garrison after getting approval from his B Co First Sgt, BUT I had not been informed. So did that Private dishonor me, by not getting my permission?

Salty

PS, in case you are wondering - what did I do, I was seeking assistance from the chain of command - but they weren't too concerned, until I reported an M-16 rifle missing!!! I assumed the Pvt took it with him, but I did not know for sure......

 

[Jerome]

I don't understand how they could have gotten separated in the first place.
Weren't they fully committed to the Family Integrated dogmas?

 

[Scarlett O.]

Absolutely not. It's literally impossible for Jesus to have dishonoured his parents because that is a sin.

To me, the BIGGER question is how can two grown adults not know where their kid is for THREE DAYS?!?!?

Mary: "Joseph! Where is Jesus?"

Joseph: "Gosh, honey, I thought he was with YOU!"

Mary: "I thought he was with YOU"!

Mary and Joseph: "AAAUUUGGGHH!!"

Then they blame each and then when they find their kid, they blame the kid.

It happens every day.

 

[Christos doulos]

Luke 2:41-51 records the familiar account of Jesus when He was 12 YO about His visit to the temple at Jerusalem.

I've often wondered if Jesus could be charged of dishonoring His earthly parents by not telling them where He was so that they wouldn't have had to back track to Jerusalem after three days to find Him debating with the doctors in the temple.

What say ye?

Here's a tidbit. Jesus never addressed Mary as "mother" until He was on the cross, but he addressed her as mother to the disciple He loved.

 

[Scarlett O.]

Here's a tidbit. Jesus never addressed Mary as "mother" until He was on the cross, but he addressed her as mother to the disciple He loved.

Well, since we only have one conversation between Jesus and Mary from his birth to age 30, we really don't know how he addressed her.

I'm sure he called her whatever the common practice for Jewish children to call their mothers was.

 

[OldRegular]

Mary was the biological mother of the human nature of Jesus Christ! Otherwise He could not have been the Seed of Abraham!

 

[kyredneck]

Absolutely not. It's literally impossible for Jesus to have dishonoured his parents because that is a sin.

To me, the BIGGER question is how can two grown adults not know where their kid is for THREE DAYS?!?!?

Mary: "Joseph! Where is Jesus?"

Joseph: "Gosh, honey, I thought he was with YOU!"

Mary: "I thought he was with YOU"!

Mary and Joseph: "AAAUUUGGGHH!!"

Then they blame each and then when they find their kid, they blame the kid.

It happens every day.

'Off the cuff', I've read where these trips to Jerusalem were like 'family reunions', and involved a whole lot (maybe up to a hundred or more in a group) of 'kin folk' all traveing together as a clan, there and back. It would be easy to understand how a child could be unaccounted for (and not worried about) for three days in this kind of 'family affair'.

[edit] BESIDES, MARY KNEW WHO HE WAS....

 

[beameup]

Luke 2:41-51 records the familiar account of Jesus when He was 12 YO about His visit to the temple at Jerusalem.

I've often wondered if Jesus could be charged of dishonoring His earthly parents by not telling them where He was so that they wouldn't have had to back track to Jerusalem after three days to find Him debating with the doctors in the temple.

What say ye?

Anyone who would not even miss their child for three days has a problem.
It indicates that they didn't think much of Jesus; that they had little regard for him.
Like David, he was not prized by his family.

I would say, that this was a "turning point" in Jesus' life as he realized that the only person who really cared about him
was his Heavenly Father and that human parents are irrelevant to the overall picture.
This is somewhat my personal experience.

 

[Alcott]

If Jesus was sinless, then there are only 2 possibilities:

1)It is not a sin for a child (a 12-y-o male was just short of being considered a man) to leave his parents without telling them his destination or intentions.

2)Anything Jesus did was not a sin-- at least 'ordinarily' (remember his temptations in the wilderness) ... corollary: "whatever God directs" a chosen person to do cannot be sin.

#1 may pose some problems, such as a kid 12 or younger (or older, considering our laws and culture) reading this and taking advantage of it. #2 is of greater concern IMO... its upshot can be used to connive at the "divine right of kings," a pastor's dictatorial authority, terrorism, et al, and is much the basis of the formation of cults.

 

[Christos doulos]

Well, since we only have one conversation between Jesus and Mary from his birth to age 30, we really don't know how he addressed her.

I'm sure he called her whatever the common practice for Jewish children to call their mothers was.

One conversation????? Are you sure?

 

[Amy.G]

Or....12 years old is below the age of accountability? I know some people don't like that term, but I am one who believes in it.

 

[beameup]

Age 12 would be the BAR MITZVAH during that time.
I would think that that was the reason why he
was in the Temple. Then he wasn't even missed at all by
the group he was traveling with speaks volumes to me.

He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows,
and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him;
he was despised, and we esteemed him not. - Isa 53:3

I think a lot of you are completely missing the message that Jesus
suffered his entire life, even in his childhood, not just "at the cross".

 

[Scarlett O.]

'Off the cuff', I've read where these trips to Jerusalem were like 'family reunions', and involved a whole lot (maybe up to a hundred or more in a group) of 'kin folk' all traveing together as a clan, there and back. It would be easy to understand how a child could be unaccounted for (and not worried about) for three days in this kind of 'family affair'.

[edit] BESIDES, MARY KNEW WHO HE WAS....

I've read that, too. It's probably true, don't you think? I was just trying to emphasis how this was not Jesus' fault and he did not dishonour anyone.

One conversation????? Are you sure?

That's all I see from the time he was born up until His ministry started. They talked everyday, of course, until he left home. But only one conversation is recorded prior to His ministry unless I am missing something. And I could be.

Anyone who would not even miss their child for three days has a problem.
It indicates that they didn't think much of Jesus; that they had little regard for him.
Like David, he was not prized by his family.

I would say, that this was a "turning point" in Jesus' life as he realized that the only person who really cared about him
was his Heavenly Father and that human parents are irrelevant to the overall picture.
This is somewhat my personal experience.

Oh, I can't agree with this. Scripture says that Mary was highly concerned and expressed her concern when she found him. When Jesus was a baby and Simeon prophesied about the baby Jesus in the Temple, he told Mary that his future would "pierce her soul" - meaning to me that heartache was in store. She stood at His cross and watched him die. What agony that must have been. I believe that she cared deeply about her Child. She and her other sons went looking for Jesus one day when some people wanted to kill him. She sent word that wanted to see him and He asked the crowd "Who is my mother.....". I think she was trying to protect him greatly.

 

[OldRegular]

Anyone who would not even miss their child for three days has a problem.
It indicates that they didn't think much of Jesus; that they had little regard for him.
Like David, he was not prized by his family.

I would say, that this was a "turning point" in Jesus' life as he realized that the only person who really cared about him
was his Heavenly Father and that human parents are irrelevant to the overall picture.
This is somewhat my personal experience.

All the above is absolute nonsense, the product of disgraceful imagination. Makes as much sense as the gospel of paul, invented out of whole cloth as some would say!

 

[plain_n_simple]

"I've often wondered if Jesus could be charged of dishonoring His earthly parents..."

Look carefully at this statement.

Are we now back under the Law and are accusing?

Why are we looking for a way to charge the annointed Christ of anything?

Do we believe that He was sinless?

 

[OldRegular]

That's all I see from the time he was born up until His ministry started. They talked everyday, of course, until he left home. But only one conversation is recorded prior to His ministry unless I am missing something. And I could be.

I believe you are correct Scarlett O

Oh, I can't agree with this. Scripture says that Mary was highly concerned and expressed her concern when she found him. When Jesus was a baby and Simeon prophesied about the baby Jesus in the Temple, he told Mary that his future would "pierce her soul" - meaning to me that heartache was in store. She stood at His cross and watched him die. What agony that must have been. I believe that she cared deeply about her Child. She and her other sons went looking for Jesus one day when some people wanted to kill him. She sent word that wanted to see him and He asked the crowd "Who is my mother.....". I think she was trying to protect him greatly.

Very well said Scarlett O. I responded before I saw your very gracious response.

 

[Mark_13]

"I've often wondered if Jesus could be charged of dishonoring His earthly parents..."

Look carefully at this statement.

Are we now back under the Law and are accusing?

Why are we looking for a way to charge the annointed Christ of anything?

Do we believe that He was sinless?

Jesus didn't live in the age of Grace. The writer didn't say he personally was accusing Christ. He posed the question "Could Jesus be accused as such."

Other respondents seem to think the writer of the OP is not aware that the Bible says Christ was without sin. That seems inconceivable to me. Really his question is implicitly "Given that we are told that Christ was without sin, in what since was what Jesus specifically did, by staying behind for days in Jerusalem when he must have known his parents were worried, not dishonouring his parents" That's what he's asking. I mean, I'm assuming the writer isn't a child or something.

But you could also ask, was Jesus not sinning in his scathing rebukes of the scribes and Pharisees, when Paul admits he himself was sinning when calling the chief priest a "white-washed" wall. Christ said MUCH worse. I think I have answer though, but this discussion isn't all that intriguing to me.

But as for Christ not dishonouring his parents, it says right there in th text that he returned to Nazareth and was subject to his parents. So, the writer there seems to affirm that the charge could plausibly be made, and so is careful to say that he did honour them. That's what's relevant, what the passage actually says, not some complete speculation about it being a big crowd or what not.

Alcott's answer was good, maybe a couple of others, most were completely off target, imo.