The first recorded words of Jesus are found in Luke chapter two, verses 41 through 52. In this passage, which I've heard any number of times, I see two related things of interest. The first comes up when you start to look at either the Greek, or begin comparing different translations of the passage. One says "...must be about my Father's business?", another "...must be in my Father's house?" Surely those are two fairly divergent statements - why are they so different?
If you look at the Greek, a literal word-for-word translation might be something like "Did you not know I am bound to be among/in the (things) of my Father?" The word "things" in parenthesis doesn't exist in the Greek text. In Koine Greek, it is not uncommon to use a pronoun such as "the" with nothing following to indicate a generality, in this case to infer that Jesus needed to be among or in ANYTHING belonging or pertaining to the Father. So either "business" or "house" would be correct in a limited way, "business" being closer to the kind of inclusiveness involved in the Greek. The word translated "about" or "in" definitely means to be a part of them, surrounded by them. It does not mean just being near them. The difference is between being on the beach ("para" in Greek) or going swimming ("en" in Greek). Also, the word translated as "must" has the flavor of being bound or tied to something. It does not imply a desire, but a necessity. To paraphrase the verse then, Jesus asks "Did you not know that I am bound to be involved in my Father's things?"
This seems to be a good barometer of our spiritual weather. If the spirit of Jesus Christ lives in us, then the degree to which we are walking in His spirit should be apparent in the degree to which we are bound to the things of the Father. The obvious question at this point is what are the things of the Father? Before we can answer, we should perhaps remove a limitation that might tend to creep into the answer to that question. The things of the Father are not necessarily PERFECT. In the case where the temple is assumed to be concerned, it was known, both in the old testament and in the new, that the temple was only a copy of something far more real (see Hebrews 8:1-2, and Exodus 25:8-9). It had varied in materials used and in the skills available for it's construction, none of which would compare to that temple of which it was a copy. Also, Jesus was involved in speaking with the priests and teachers of the law, and we know beyond a shadow of a doubt that not all their teachings were correct or authoritative - Jesus would be back later to make that abundantly clear!
So, if to be among the Father's "things" required neither perfection of form or intent or intellect, what were the qualifications? I think the peculiarities of the Greek in this verse makes it very clear - the only qualification was to be called by the Father's name. Both the temple and the priesthood were SANCTIFIED - called apart for the Father, set aside for His use. It was this, and nothing else, that caused Jesus to be drawn irresistibly to them. What a marvelous model of grace this is! Through no merit of theirs at all, by their simply being set aside for His purposes (and even imperfectly that), the Father claims them for His own, and Jesus is bound to them. It is in this same way that Christians are made. It is not by their becoming perfect that they become worthy of the Father, but by being set aside for His purposes, they become the special concern of the Father, and of the Son, who is His heir. We are called by His name.
And we can continue outward from there to find other thing's that are called by the Father's name. Every church, every ministry, even every denomination, flawed though they may be, are nonetheless called by His name insomuch as they are Christian at all. How do we treat these things? I know of some who view the church building as nothing else - just a building. They don't seem to realize that it is a building called by His name - and therefore something that Jesus is specially concerned with. When I was younger, I left behind a lot that I had heard about the church being God's House - after all, Christians are the temple of the Holy Spirit. Although I still believe that to be true, this verse seems to indicate that I cannot treat this building commonly.
Likewise I must treat other denominations as Jesus is seen treating the priests and teachers. I have no doubt that He was working to correct them, but that can only be because what they thought and believed was important to Him. He is never seen taking a flippant attitude toward them as we might tend to do. He never wrote them off. He would question, challenge, and even assault them, but only because it was His business to! He never sought to destroy them, but only to perfect them. I imagine He continues to strive to that end even now, not because they are special in and of themselves, but simply because they are called by His name.
Even in other religions one can find traces of the one who is truly the Father of all. I do not doubt that both Father and Son work continuously at purifying and correcting all of these (some more than others) - anywhere that a human heart calls out to the one great good, maybe completely unknown to him, but yet yearned and hoped for. And why stop there? Every tree, and flower, every mountain top or hillside, every bird or beast, is called by the name of the Father who is their Creator. Only evil itself is exempt, for "every good and perfect gift comes from above, coming down from the Father of Lights". Every good thing is called by the Father's name.
All that being said, it is clear that almost nothing is common. From the specific things, like churches, ministries and denominations, to the general things - wind and stars and rocks and the like - every remnant of every good thing that has ever been or ever will be, is called in some way and to some degree by the Father's name. Where then is hatred? Where is disdain? Whom are we free to scorn and ridicule? Who, to our peril, will we dare to ignore? Almost everywhere we turn, we are confronted by the Name that is above all Names.
I suppose that's at least one reason why we are told that in everything we do, do it as if for Jesus Christ. Unless we are engaged in doing WRONG, we ARE involved in the business of Heaven. In a wonderful little book "Gutta Percha Willie" by George MacDonald, a shoemaker helps introduce the protagonist to what he calls the "general business", by which he means that each should search to do what he can to love his neighbor through his work - whether that be the work of a doctor, such as Willie's father, or that of a shoemaker. No matter what one is doing, if it is honorable, then it is also ennobling.
So, as regards this first point, I need to at least be aware of how I treat things, starting with things that are EXPLICITLY sanctified to God my Savior - Christians, churches, pastors, Bibles, devotion and prayer times, because I can be assured that in these things, I am likely to encounter my God, who calls them His own. Then I need to examine how I treat my neighbor, and how I treat my enemy, because within each is the remains of the image of God. How do I treat my possessions, and the possessions of others? How is my work ethic? Do I complain about my work, or do I excel at it? Looking over all of this, there is a large part of the gospel and Christian doctrine to be found in this one story!
The second thing that I noted in this story relates back to the use of the word translated as "among" or "about". It is used twice in this narrative, once as Mary and Joseph search among their relatives and acquaintances for Him, and once in Jesus incredulous statement "Did you not know I must be among my Father's things?" What I've been wrestling with is that incredulity. Jesus seems absolutely perplexed that He has caused this concern. It appears like He thinks the Temple is the most obvious place in the world to have looked for Him. It certainly didn't seem so to His parents. It made sense to them that He would be with the "familiar", with the full original meaning of the word being very relevant. And so He was. Certainly we have a nod in the direction of His deity, for the Father had taken Israel and raised it up, created the priesthood, dictated the basic pattern for the Temple - these things were some of His "special" works, and therefore of particular concern. Jesus, having laid aside much that was His from eternity, is puzzled that his guardians would have looked for Him anywhere else. To them, though, His behavior was so different, it put them completely out of their reckoning.
Unfortunately I have to then ask myself if I seem all that different to those around me. Does my concern for the things of God ever shock? Are my priorities so strange that questions get asked, reasons sought, plausible explanations posed? Do I get at least a few raised eyebrows for the company I keep? I know it's cliche, but if I were on trial for being a Christian, a real disciple, an apprentice of Jesus Christ, would there be enough evidence to convict me? I don't think so. I think I am respectable. What a horrible thing to be.
All this is to say that at the very beginning I am being challenged to see the world differently, to seek out my Father's "things", and to do His work, insomuch as I know what He desires, and insomuch as it is within my power to do it. If I do so, there just might be a few times where I'm not where respectable people would be. I might say things that respectable people wouldn't say. And maybe I'll help change some things that respectable people, like all Pharisees everywhere, simply will not change.
