THE FINDING OF JESUS IN THE TEMPLE. WE occasionally find in the daily journals brief allusions to the miscellaneous contents of the principal monthly serials. One of these journals, speaking of a popular periodical for May, says :— "It contains a notice of Mr. Holman Hunt's glorious picture of the finding of Christ in the temple, of which, the writer tells us, 'that Europe has produced no one work of equal force and compass, since the great soul of Velasquez was fretted to death by the frivolities of a court festival, or Rubens laid in the chancel of St. Jaques, beneath the glory and glow of his own masterpiece."" The sight of this paragraph, reminding us of the great fact recorded in the New Testament, of the childhood of Jesus-a fact intensely interesting to the sincere Christian-induced us to lay before the reader some reflections upon this event, or incident, in our Saviour's life : "And when they [Joseph and Mary] had performed all things according to the law of the Lord, they returned into Galilee, into their own city Nazareth. And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom: and the grace of God was upon him. Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast. And when they had fulfilled the days, as they returned, the child Jesus tarried behind in Jerusalem; and Joseph and his mother knew not of it. But they, supposing him to have been in the company, went a day's journey; and they sought him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance. And when they found him not, they turned back again to Jerusalem, seeking him. And it came to pass, that after three days they found him in the temple, sitting in the midst of the doctors, both hearing them and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers." (Luke ii. 39.) It seems natural to suppose that the child Jesus would, during their sojourn at Jerusalem, sleep under the same roof with his parents; and that, on the morning of their quitting the holy city, Mary's watchful affection would see that the dearest treasure of her heart walked by her side to the appointed place of meeting, where the kindred, friends, and neighbours of Joseph and Mary would all assemble, with other Galilean Jews, that they might set out together on their homeward journey. The child appears to have been absent from his parents during the whole day; and the words, "the child tarried behind in Jerusalem," would seem to teach us that he withdrew himself from the presence of his mother when the travellers were leaving the city. We shall not be much surprised that Joseph and Mary felt no uneasiness at not seeing their child during the day, when we consider what had been the character of that child from the time of his becoming an intelligent moral agent, possessing the power of distressing or cheering the hearts of his parents by his actions and deportment. The scriptural account is brief, but very emphatic: "The child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom, and the grace of God was upon him." Such wisdom and grace would render him both singularly holy and singularly amiable. And we at once see how thoroughly Jesus must have possessed the confidence of his parents, and the affection of all their relations and friends. This view is evidently demanded by the graphic portrait of our Lord's first twelve years, mentioned by St. Luke; and we have thus a satisfactory explanation of the conduct of Joseph and Mary, who, supposing their child to be with some of their relations or friends in the company, went a whole day's journey without the shadow of a suspicion-(how could they suspect such a child?)—that he was not returning with them to Galilee. In the evening, when the travellers halted for the night, they would naturally desire to enjoy his presence; for Joseph could not but love the gracious boy, and Mary's heart must have yearned to behold her son after the day's separation. They proceeded to seek him among their kinsfolk and acquaintance; and when their search proved vain, they at once determined to retrace their steps. We, who are acquainted from our earliest childhood with what really occurred, and how their search terminated, are almost inclined to wonder that they did not at once repair to the temple, as the spot where they were most likely to find the divine and holy treasure which they were seeking. They do not, however, appear to have done so; and sought the Son of God (aware though they both were of his unquestionable claim to that high title) just as if he had been only the son of Joseph. Accordingly, they would consider it best to go first of all to the place where they had themselves lodged during the passover-feast which had just ended, and ask first one and then another, if they had seen their child, describing his age, stature, and appearance. If they were acquainted with any families in Jerusalem, they would visit them in succession, and make inquiries among them. On the failure of these attempts, we should naturally suppose that if they had been accustomed to resort with the child to any favourite spots in the immediate vicinity of the city, they would next bend their steps to these; and it is perhaps not beyond the limits of probability that they may have crossed the brook Cedron, and have even approached the garden of Gethsemane, "not yet a name of tears and sorrow." All their attempts, however, to find him whom they had lost were unsuccessful during that day, and they were compelled to pass another night in suspense and anxiety. After three days, their search was terminated, and they discovered Jesus in the temple. It is well known that in the Scriptures the phrase, "after three days," admits of being interpreted in our language, "on the third day." We shall follow this view on the present occasion, and suppose it to have been on the third day that the anxious parents recovered their missing child. It might seem, at the first glance, as if the scriptural record left it uncertain where Jesus was on the two preceding days. Undoubtedly it does not give us express information on this point. Yet is not the information, which they furnish us of his conduct on the third day, of a very suggestive character in regard to what he had been doing on the immediately preceding days? If it was his duty to be in his Father's house on the third day, as he told his parents when they found him on that day, it is so far from being an arbitrary conjecture that the same line of filial duty was incumbent on him on the first and second days of his stay in the holy city, that the more we reflect upon the narrative, the more difficult does it become to resist accepting, as highly probable, the view that he was occupied on the first and second days as on the third. If we admit this inference to be almost certain, then will other conclusions also commend themselves to our understanding as conjectures which are neither unscriptural nor improbable, but rather are sober, and comparatively unobjectionable. On this supposition it would seem that Jesus, the very first day of his stay, repaired to the temple, and there attracted the attention and won the regard and esteem of his hearers; and the Most High could, by these natural and reasonable means, incline the hearts of priests and Levites towards the marvellously wise, holy, and amiable child; and it would be their pleasure to give him an abode within the sacred precincts, and provide him with needful refreshment. And thus the temple, his Father's house, would be his home and dwelling-place during his temporary separation from his parents. We return to Joseph and Mary. Having found no traces of Jesus in the place where they had recently lodged during the feast, among the families of their acquaintance, or in their favourite walks beyond the city walls-and the very fact that they were unable to hear tidings of him in these various places is, to a certain degree, not an unimportant or negative presumption that he had confined himself chiefly to the temple during the first and second days also of his stay in Jerusalem-they turned their attention to the sacred edifice. On entering, their first inquiry would meet with a satisfactory reply, and the lost one would be immediately recovered. To their surprise they saw him "sitting in the midst of the doctors (didaokaλwv), hearing them, and asking them questions. And all that heard him were astonished at his understanding and answers.' "" Some commentators have thought that we must not suppose the meek and lowly Jesus to have been seated on the same range of couches or benches as these learned teachers, but that he was with others, in a lower space, in front; or in the midst of them, if we may suppose their elevated seats to have been of a semicircular form. There is, perhaps, no objection to this view, although there does not appear to be anything inconsistent, either with the narrative or with the character of Jesus, in supposing that the doctors had called him from the promiscuous assembly before them, and made him sit down at their side, in order to mark the admiration and pleasure which had been excited in their mind by his marvellous wisdom and gracious deportment. We must gather the probable conduct of Jesus from the whole scriptural narratives, and prepare ourselves to infer how he behaved and acted in his twelfth year, by learning what had been his character in previous years. He must have displayed in the temple genuine and holy meekness; for, from his infancy onward, the grace of God had been upon him; and divine grace would not suffer the child to lack those beautiful and winning ornaments of boyhood, meekness and modesty. But there would be no traces of the defects and infirmities of false shame, or even of hesitating and timid bashfulness; for as the child grew, it waxed strong in spirit; and holy, heaven-imparted strength of spirit, even in a child of twelve years of age, implies self-possession and self-mastery; and while it obeys dutifully the paternal and maternal voice, and, in the fear of God, gives honour to whom honour is due, it is raised above the fear of man by conscious rectitude, and sincerity towards both God and men. There would be no appearance of forwardness, vainglory, or self-seeking; for well did that child know that he was in the house of his Father, whose all-seeing eye was equally upon his external deportment and his inward thoughts. He would, therefore, while seated in the midst of the learned teachers, never forget for a moment One far greater than they, and would bear himself, as in the presence of the Divine Majesty, with all filial and loving reverence, seeking not his own glory, but the glory of his unseen and heavenly Father. It seems somewhat strange that these learned teachers should have suffered the parents to take away their child so easily. What a discovery would they have made, had they privately and carefully, kindly and perseveringly, examined the parents concerning the wonderful child, whom they allowed to depart as if he had been only the son of Joseph and Mary, and as if his wisdom, and his sweet and gracious bearing, though truly marvellous, were only human, and had nothing in them truly and essentially divine. Of this memorable part of our Lord's life Calvin says," Christ gave them to taste of his divine wisdom and knowledge. Methinks they might have had Christ to enter upon his work now, but they were only astonished, and understood not the indication; and therefore, like Moses, he retires into obscurity, and they hear no more of him for many years after." "And We now come to the meeting between the parents and their recovered child. And how did the mother greet her son? his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? Behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing." Now what answer would a dutiful Jewish child, who feared God, and made a conscience of habitually honouring his parents, make to such a touching appeal? Even if he could plead a more than plausible excuse for his conduct, would he not at least express unfeigned filial regret at having been the cause of such grief to parents who had always so loved him, that it was one of his highest earthly duties to shrink from the bare thought of wounding and distressing their tender affection. No sincere Christian will doubt for one moment that Jesus, on whom the grace of God had been from his infancy, had habitually obeyed the fifth commandment, "Honour thy father and thy mother." Of course, then, in his reply to his mother's loving and touching appeal, we shall find expressions of sorrow, a request to be forgiven, and a promise not to disregard the feelings of his parents in future. Let us not be too certain of this. We are reading of a marvellous child, it is better not to be too hasty in deciding what he ought to say and do. Are there any traces of what we should thus expect to find there, in the following calm reply, which rather wears the character of grave though gentle reproof, than of confession and apology. "And Jesus said unto them, How is it that ye sought me? Wist ye not that I must be in my Father's house? "* How are we to arrive at the true meaning of this singular reply? How can this question be explained consistently with our deep conviction of the true character of him who, wise and thoughtful as he was, was, at the time, not yet old enough to be called even a youthful questioner? Perhaps, by resolving it into such admissions and queries as the following:-"I do not ask you, why you In our Authorized Version, this clause is rendered-" Wist ye not that I must be about my Father's business ?" In the original, the form is elliptical, εν τοῖς τοῦ Πατρος μου, literally " in my We |