In My Father's House (part 7)

The first time that Jesus stayed behind in Jerusalem, and His mother and father were not immediately able to locate Him, “they began to look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances” (Luke 2:44b).  At the times of the feasts, individuals or families would not travel by themselves from Galilee to Jerusalem and back.  They would travel in groups.  Customarily, the men would form one group and move at a quicker pace, whereas the women would form a second, more slowly-moving group (with babies and younger children), catching up with the men at the conclusion of the day’s travels. 

It would have been at the end of the first day’s travel from Jerusalem that it would have been discovered that Jesus was not with them.  Such an over-sight could have occurred relatively easily.  Jesus’ mother would have presumed that He was in the lead group with His father, while His father would have presumed that He was back in the trailing group with His mother.  So it was natural that they first look for Him among their relatives and acquaintances, as reported by Luke, before discovering that He was not with them. 

Making the connection with the second time that He stayed behind in Jerusalem (having gone to the cross and into the grave), and doing so based on the messianic movements and expectations of the day, one can reasonably assert that, once again, there was a search made among His relatives and acquaintances.  What does this mean?  There are at least two ways to think about this.  The first is that, in order to keep the “Jesus movement” going, those that were ardent in their support for Him would have looked among His relatives and close friends in order to find and choose a new leader of the movement.  Ultimately, it can be seen that this happened, but not right away, as Jesus’ brother James, who was not one of His followers during Jesus’ lifetime, came to eventually be looked to as the head of the Church in Jerusalem. 

The second way to think about this is that the Romans, as well as the Jewish leaders that were involved in putting Jesus to death, would have expected Jesus’ followers to appoint a new leader, so as to continue His movement (at least temporarily), partly in order to avoid the shame and dishonor associated with backing a fallen leader.  Of course, it would also have been a possibility that the group would disband permanently, having been shamed out of existence with the crucifixion of Jesus, and living with the abiding fear that anybody believed to have been closely associated with Jesus would come to suffer the same fate.  If standard practices were followed in the way that revolutionary or seditious groups were handled in the wake of a state sanctioned execution, these groups would have diligently searched out Jesus’ relatives and acquaintances, to have them executed as well, so as to stifle any further “problems” in association with Jesus. This would explain the disciples’ hiding and cowering in fear, behind locked doors.                

So having looked “among their relatives and acquaintances” (2:44b), “they did not find Him” (2:45a).  As it relates to Jesus’ crucifixion and Resurrection, as previously discussed, of course they did not find Him.  Jesus was not attempting to establish the kingdom of God in the expected way of a revolution by overthrow at force of arms, so a new leader of the movement was not a necessity.  Beyond that, the appointment of a new leader was not necessary, for the One that had been killed and buried, though unbeknownst to His followers, was going to be returning to life, to reign over the kingdom that was being established through His suffering and vindication.