The Finding of Jesus in the Temple

All the males in Israel were bound by the Mosaic Law to appear three times yearly before the Lord, that is, at the Feast of the Pasch, at Pentecost, and at the Feast of Tabernacles. The place to which the Hebrews were thus obliged to resort was that in which the Ark of the Covenant was guarded by the priests, which, after being removed to different places, was by David brought to Mount Sion, and was afterwards lodged in the Temple which Solomon built for it at Jerusalem.¹ Women were not bound by this law, although they often observed it from devotion. We read, in fact, of Elcana, father of the prophet Samuel, and his whole family, including his wives, sons, and daughters, going every year to Silo, where the Ark then was, to join in the accustomed sacrifices.² Children also, as well as women, were exempted from this obligation, save that, by a custom which came to have the force of law, boys were obliged to keep all the Mosaic precepts, civil as well as religious, when they had completed thirteen years of age; and parents, we are told, were in the habit of initiating them in these observances during the previous year; these boys were consequently called “sons of the precept”.³ But, as has been just observed, fathers were often accustomed to take their children with them at a much earlier age to be present at the solemn feasts of the Law.

That the parents of Jesus observed this devotional practice, and always took Jesus with them whenever they went up together to Jerusalem, there can be no doubt. We cannot conceive them leaving the Divine Child behind at Nazareth, or even willingly separating themselves from His company. If the Evangelist makes no mention of any festival save that of the Pasch,⁴ nor of the presence of Jesus at the Paschal solemnity until His twelfth year, it is on account of the incident which then took place, and which he relates. The Evangelists do not travel beyond their immediate scope and object;⁵ we have frequent examples of this reticence on their part, of which heretics and unbelievers have not been slow to take advantage. St. Luke’s expressions cannot be understood to imply that Jesus went up for the first time to Jerusalem when He was twelve years old, but only that on that occasion He remained behind. These are his words: “And His parents went every year to Jerusalem at the solemn day of the Pasch. And when He was twelve years old, they going up into Jerusalem according to the custom of the feast, and having fulfilled the days, when they returned, the Child Jesus remained in Jerusalem; and His parents knew it not.”⁶ The meaning is obvious. It was sufficient, in order to the fulfillment of the precept, to be present one day only in the Temple, but the Holy Family, mirror of all religious perfection, remained the whole week of the Azymes, or Unleavened Bread, in Jerusalem, as is implied in the phrase, “having fulfilled the days”. After finishing their thanksgiving, Mary and Joseph prepared to return to Nazareth, in company, no doubt, for a portion of the way, until their respective roads would diverge, with not a few of their holy relatives. Various suggestions have been made as to how it was that Jesus remained in Jerusalem without the knowledge of His parents. That by His divine power He could conceal Himself from them, and pass away unobserved, we can readily understand: herein does not lie the difficulty; but how was it that, careful as they were of Him, a whole day should elapse without their noticing His absence? The solution adopted by Canon Vitali, and the most usual, seems to be also the most satisfactory. It is as follows.

In order to avoid all confusion and disorder in that great mixture of persons of all classes gathered from every part of Palestine for the Paschal solemnity, and now returning to their homes, it had been arranged that, on leaving the Holy City, the men should assemble by themselves in bands, and the women in like manner. Thus they each set out separately, and remained separate until they all reached the halting-place for the night.⁷ It was optional for children to accompany either of their parents. Jesus was in the Temple with Mary and Joseph until the close of their act of thanksgiving; but when this was concluded, and the Virgin was leaving on one side with the women, and Joseph on the other with the men, He by a marvelous act of His power withdrew Himself from their sight, Joseph being persuaded that He had remained with His Mother, and Mary, on her part, supposing that He had gone with Joseph. Maria d’Agreda says that they were both raised at that moment to an exalted state of contemplation, which diverted their thoughts from all external objects; and well might their attendance at the Paschal solemnities cast them into profound meditation, for they well knew that Jesus was the cause, the object, and the end of the great sacrifice then offered. They would never suspect that He had left them, and remained in the Temple, for this was an act on the part of the Divine Child quite unprecedented, an independent act, of which He had never before given an example. This hiding of Himself from the eyes of His parents was an instance of the exercise of that divine power which He subsequently renewed in the case of the Scribes and Pharisees when they sought to stone Him,⁸ and again when His infuriated countrymen would have led Him to the brow of the hill whereon their city was built to precipitate Him thence.⁹ Without some such prodigy we could scarcely understand the loss of Jesus, considering the great love, care, and vigilance with which Mary and Joseph always watched over Him. And we know that it was through no fault of theirs that it occurred, but from the will of God, that the absence of Jesus might manifest the glory of His Father, the merit of His parents, and the deep counsels of Divine Providence.¹⁰ Jesus, then, remained behind in the Temple, which was indeed His house, and which He made His chief abode during this ever-memorable triduo. Here, we may well believe, He prayed long and fervently for the salvation of men; and saints have told us that He asked alms in Jerusalem, to sanctify and bless by His example, not poverty alone, but extreme indigence.

Joseph having joined the men’s caravan, where he would probably find his brother Cleophas and other relatives, while Mary was in the women’s company, with Mary of Cleophas and others of their kindred, they journeyed as far as the city of Machmas (now El Bir). We can imagine that the pious pilgrims sang as they went the praises of God, or conversed about holy things, and especially the longed-for coming of the Messias; yet Mary must have been inwardly sad at the unaccustomed absence of her Son, who was the joy of her heart and the light of her eyes, but would console herself with the assurance that He was safe. He was with Joseph, and with Joseph He must needs be safe; neither, we may be sure, would she grudge her holy and beloved spouse the bliss of His company, because for the present she could not be the partner of it. And now the sun was sinking, and they were all nearing the walls of Machmas, the first station of those who were returning from Jerusalem into Galilee. Soon the terrible truth disclosed itself—Jesus was not with Joseph and He was not with Mary! Tradition supports the assertion here made, that it was at Machmas¹¹ the Blessed Virgin discovered that the Child Jesus was not in their company, and Martorelli, in his book on the Holy Land, which he visited, says that a beautiful church was anciently dedicated to her there, in memory of the poignant grief of this most tender of mothers, and that at the time of the Crusades, having been found in a dilapidated state, it was rebuilt by the soldiers of the Cross. The walls, he adds, occupy a space of thirty-two meters in length, but they were in ruins in his time, seeming in their desolation to participate in Mary’s sorrow.¹² Was ever sorrow, indeed, like unto her sorrow? Yet Joseph’s might well bear some comparison therewith, since his soul was, according to its measure, filled to overflowing with unutterable grief. Next to Jesus, who was preeminently the Man of Sorrows, must, without question, rank the Queen of Dolors, His Mother, for, after the Human Soul of the Word Incarnate, with Its immeasurable capacities for sorrow and suffering, must follow, at whatever distance, that of His most holy Mother, which was a very ocean of sorrow; and next to hers, and closely resembling it in the same marvelous capacity, was, surely, the soul of the incomparable Joseph, divinely chosen to be her spouse, and made so like to her. These two stand by themselves in a proximate preeminence of sorrow, as Mary herself may be said to have recognized in those remarkable words addressed to her Son: “Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing”.¹³ Their grief must have admitted of comparison, or she would not have uttered them, and uttered them, too, to Him who was the Truth Itself, and knew what was in the hearts of all men. “Why,” says Cartagena, “were both sorrowing but that both loved; and why were both so sorrowful but that together they loved so much? Mary sorrowed because she was a mother; Joseph because he was a father. The sorrow of Mary was the sorrow of Joseph; both alike sorrowed. The love of Mary was the love of Joseph. Their sorrow and their love for the Child Jesus were alike, according to their respective capacities; immeasurable and illimitable. Mary is all sorrow and love; Joseph is all sorrow and love.”¹⁴ The love and tenderness of Joseph for the Divine Child were, indeed, inexpressible; his sorrow, too, was therefore like to that of Mary, a very ocean, unfathomable to us, whose shallow hearts are, in comparison with his, so cold and insensible. He had, besides, a poignant sense of grief peculiarly his own, in that he had received from above the special charge of Jesus; and what account could he now give of that precious deposit?

But to return to the Gospel narrative. St. Luke’s words are: “Thinking He was in the company, they came a day’s journey”. Each of them, as is evident, believed Him to be so until they met at the close of the day. The Evangelist continues: “and sought Him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance”—this, as we understand it, would be naturally their first step, however hopeless, before retracing their way,—“and, not finding Him, they returned into Jerusalem seeking Him”. The explanation we have given, which is the one most usually adopted, and which is easily reconcilable with the words of St. Luke, would seem to approve itself to the mind more than that which De Vit, in his Life of our Saint, prefers. According to him, there was no separation between Joseph and Mary, they traveled all day together, and, not seeing Jesus with them, were satisfied that He was in the company of some of their kindred and friends; and, in order to exonerate the Blessed Virgin and her holy spouse from any imputation of negligence in this journeying a whole day without ascertaining where Jesus was, he says that a reason may be found for their conduct in the custom of their nation, to which some allusion has been made, namely, that boys who had completed thirteen years of age were held to be bound by all the Mosaic laws, and hence became personally responsible for their actions. It was a kind of emancipation from paternal control, for which parents (as we have said) were in the habit of preparing their sons the previous year, by a certain relaxation in their exercise of superintendence and authority, according them a reasonable liberty. Now, though (he says) all this was not needed in the case of the Child Jesus, he seems to think that His parents would conform themselves to the common practice, that nothing might transpire to those around them of the secret committed to their keeping. But such a reason can hardly be judged sufficient to account for this apparent want of solicitude. Solicitude, considering the youth of Jesus and the mixed crowd of persons who composed the caravan, would be natural in the most ordinary parents, and it would have implied no peculiar exercise of authority if that solicitude had sought relief in inquiry and search. How much more might we anticipate that Joseph and Mary, cognizant also, as they were, of the perils which had beset His infancy, would not acquiesce tranquilly for a whole day in the absence of Jesus without ascertaining, at least, that He was in safe keeping. No doubt this loss was a mystery from beginning to end, but in whatever way it may have pleased God thus to hide it in the first instance from the knowledge of Mary and Joseph, and silence anxiety in their hearts, the method suggested does not seem to be the most probable, for the reasons we have given.

If, however, we cannot accept De Vit’s views on this confessedly difficult question, we entirely agree with him in believing that the three days’ loss ought to count inclusively from the day when Jesus withdrew Himself and remained behind in Jerusalem, and not that Mary and Joseph sought Him for three whole days in Jerusalem. There seems to be a kind of parallel between this loss and the three days during which Jesus remained in the grave, which was, in fact, only one whole day and a portion of two others. Of the third, indeed, it was the veriest fraction of a day, for He rose from the grave very early in the morning and before the sun was above the horizon. Yet St. Mark’s words are: “and after three days rise again”.¹⁵ This was the Hebrew mode of computing days, a portion of the day counting for a day. So also, in the loss and finding of Jesus, the three days probably include the day on which Joseph and Mary journeyed unconscious of their loss until near its close; the second, during which they were wholly engaged in their weary and agonizing search for Him; and the third, on which they joyfully found Him in the Temple, but how early in the day that might be we do not know.

Tradition tells us little or nothing of the particulars of the previous search, but saints and favored souls have had visions on the subject, which furnish matter for pious meditation and assist our devotion in its consideration, especially those of Maria d’Agreda. She dwells particularly on the calmness and equanimity which our Lady preserved notwithstanding her inward martyrdom, which could only be compared to what she was afterwards to endure at the foot of the Cross; many, indeed, have been led to believe that for several reasons the three days’ loss was the most severe of Mary’s dolors. Yet she never for one moment lost her interior peace of mind; and this was the more wonderful and meritorious because, as the same contemplative tells us, God left her during those three days in an ordinary state of grace, deprived of all the special favors with which her soul was enriched at other times. Of the glorious Patriarch, St. Joseph, she also says that he suffered incomparable affliction and grief, going from one place to another, sometimes with his holy spouse, sometimes alone, while she made search in another direction. His life, she adds, would have been in grievous peril if the hand of the Lord had not fortified and supported him, and if the Virgin most prudent had not herself in the midst of her own sorrow consoled her spouse and entreated him to take some brief repose. For the love he bore the Divine Child was so intense that it urged him to seek for his lost Treasure with an anxiety and a vehemence which made him forget either to eat or to sleep. Our Lord revealed to Jeanne Bénigne Gojos, a nun of the Order of the Visitation, who lived in the 17th century and had a great devotion to the Sacred Humanity, that the pain which both Mary and Joseph suffered was so great that without His secret assistance they could not have survived. Their sorrow, He said, was simply incomprehensible, and that He alone could understand it. From His revelations to this holy soul we also gather that this third dolor of our Lady was one of the chief sufferings of our Blessed Lord Himself.¹⁶

At last, both of them having received an angelic suggestion to repair to the Temple, they hastened thither, and there they beheld Jesus seated in the midst of the Doctors, “hearing them and asking them questions”. The hall where the Doctors held their conferences and also admitted disciples who sought instruction from them, was, it appears, not in the body of the Temple; Mary and Joseph might, therefore, have entered the sacred building, and missed the object of their search, but the time was come for the close of their trial. All eyes were fixed upon Jesus, for the Doctors, whom He had first interrogated, had now themselves become the questioners, and were listening with admiration to the words of wisdom which came from the lips of the Boy-God. “All that heard Him,” says St. Luke, “were astonished at His wisdom and His answers.” And truly His divine loveliness was in itself sufficient to entrance them. A kingly majesty was on His youthful brow. His beautiful hair rested on His shoulders; and we are told that it never grew beyond the length suitable for man, and, moreover, that not one hair of His adorable Head ever fell from it until plucked out by the cruel Roman soldiers. His eyes were radiant with the light of truth and the fire of charity. What was He saying, and what had they asked? No doubt, it had reference to the promised Messias, the expectation of whose advent was general in Israel at that day. The same favored soul whom we have already quoted says that He was rectifying their erroneous notions concerning a glorious and warlike Deliverer, who was to restore political independence to their nation and give them sovereignty over their enemies and oppressors. He was pointing out the prophecies, by them overlooked, which spoke of the humiliation and sufferings of the Messias; and, had the hearts of the listeners been as open to grace as were their eyes and ears to the charm of what they saw and heard, they must have recognized the predicted Liberator in the marvelous Boy whose wisdom so astonished them. Nevertheless we may hope that some good seed may have been sown in the hearts of more than one among them, which was later to bear fruit. We are reluctant to think that He who accorded to His Apostle Peter a miraculous draught of no less than three thousand souls at his first sermon should Himself on this occasion, when He mysteriously forestalled His own future public ministry by occupying Himself thus early about His Eternal Father’s interests, have drawn no single one into His net, and that bare admiration and wonder were all that He succeeded in eliciting. Be this as it may, we cannot penetrate the secret counsels of God, nor expect always to see what we call the reasons of things. Even in the natural world we are constantly at fault in this respect; how much more should it be so in the higher region of grace, in the invisible things of God, and the secret dispensations of His Providence!

Even Mary and Joseph are said to have wondered on seeing Him.¹⁷ There was something new to them in His voice, manner, attitude, and bearing. Never had they seen Him like to that before. Doubtless they stood for a moment looking on, silent for very joy and awe. Joseph, indeed, continued silent. Though, as the father and head, he had the first right to question the Boy concerning His absence, he spoke not a word, leaving it to the Mother to make that touching remonstrance to her Son and her God which we so well know: “Son, why hast Thou done so to us? Behold, Thy father and I have sought Thee sorrowing.” We have already made several comments on her mention of Joseph’s sorrow along with and indeed, as it were, before her own, and have pointed to all which such mention implies with reference to the rights, dignity, and position of her incomparable spouse, and will only here subjoin two further observations: first, that great and immeasurable as had been Mary’s grief, it had not only not made her forget that of Joseph, but had not prevented her from sorrowing deeply for the anguish of soul which she knew he was enduring—this may give us some slight idea of its intensity; secondly, that she knew how dear he was to Jesus, since in her pathetic remonstrance and appeal she alludes to this sorrow of His father as sure to move His filial heart as much as would the thought of her own. Jesus replied: “How is it that you sought Me? Did you not know that I must be about My Father’s business?” or, as some have rendered the last words, “in My Father’s house?” Whichever rendering be adopted, the meaning is substantially the same; but it was a meaning hidden for the time both from Mary and from Joseph, for the Evangelist says: “They understood not the word that He spoke unto them”. In whatever sense we are to understand this temporary ignorance on the part of His parents, we cannot, at any rate, suppose that they did not comprehend that He was speaking of His Eternal Father and of the mission which He had come upon earth to fulfill. Mary and Joseph well knew that their Jesus was the true Son of God, and they knew also the end for which He had come. The angel had clearly announced it to them. Independently, therefore, of all the heavenly illuminations which they, and especially the Mother of God herself, must have since received from the Divine Child, no obscurity could exist in their minds on this matter. That which for the present had been withheld from them was, it would seem, the full knowledge of the order, mode, and time in which this divine mission was to be accomplished, and, in particular, the place in that order which the present unexpected act of Jesus held, or what was its full significance. The reply of Jesus to His Mother did not as yet raise the veil, but light, no doubt, came to her, and to Joseph also, when they had once more with them Him who is “the true light of men”. For, even as hereafter at the marriage-feast of Cana of Galilee He publicly manifested His power at His Mother’s request, before the hour was yet come,¹⁸ so, when now displaying the first rays of His glory before the Doctors of Israel, and in the very midst of His divine instructions, a word from Mary made Him leave all, and meekly return with her and Joseph to Nazareth. It is a mystery quite beyond our comprehension—though a fitting subject for meditation and reverent conjecture—this assertion by our Lord of His sovereign independence even in His boyhood; to be immediately followed, as it was, by His voluntary and complete subjection to His parents for so many subsequent years. “And He went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject to them.”¹⁹