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.

Christ's Peace (part 1 of 2)

Peace I leave with you; My peace I give to you; I do not give it to you as the world does. – John 14:37a  (NET)

In the Gospel of John, which is the only one of the Gospel records of the life and ministry of Jesus in which we hear these words, we find this statement from Jesus in the midst of what is considered to be a portion of His “parting words” to His disciples, before beginning what was going to be His arduous trek to the cross and the grave.  What would Jesus’ disciples have heard Him telling them with these words?  To what was Jesus referring to when He spoke here of “peace,” and what did He mean when He said that He would give it to them, but not “as the world does”?  Remember, Jesus Himself provides context for understanding what is meant by “peace,” as He insists that it is a “peace” that is not going to be given to His followers (those that believe Him to be the Messiah) in the same way as the world of His time commonly experiences “peace” and is made to understand the term.  

We need to be careful not to import modern or idealistic notions of “peace” into the text or the setting, thus it can be said that “peace” would not necessarily have been used here as some type of existential term, denoting a certain type of internal feeling about one’s situation in life or place in the world.  Indeed, “peace” would have had a more concrete referent.  It would have had a more substantial, robust, and true to life definition.  Most sensibly, the immediate context for its use would have been the way the word and notion was understood at that time. 

Perhaps most importantly, the “peace” of the day was the “pax romana,” or the “Roman peace.”  It was a day in which “peace and security” were much heralded.  That peace and security, however, was brought about through Rome’s military might.  It was a peace primarily achieved through violent conflict and bloodshed (though some would surrender to Rome before hostilities would take place----this only because of the knowledge of what Rome would do to those that stood against them).  Hence, this understanding of “peace” would certainly have been lurking in the background of Jesus’ words.    

There would also have been a widely held notion amongst Jesus’ fellow citizens concerning the shape that would be taken by peace.  In that day, it was the great desire of many Jews that their ancestral land be emptied of the hated Romans.  Consequently, many (but obviously not all) were looking to the miracle-worker and food-provider known as Jesus of Nazareth to lead the revolution (Jesus fit the mold in many ways---beginning in Galilee, the seedbed of revolutionary activity, announcing an agenda, and then moving on to Jerusalem), that would bring peace to their land that would materialize in the form of the expulsion of their subjugating enemies. 

To the great disappointment of many, not only would Jesus not bring this supposed form of peace to His people, saying that “I do not give it to you as the world does,” but He was intent on bringing a different type of peace, which would still have the effect of allowing all of His people---the ones that He said that the Father had given to Him---to overcome the subjugation of their greatest enemy, which was the one with which they would do constant battle.  That enemy bore the name of “death.”  Ironically, in order to bring about this different type of peace, Jesus would Himself succumb to death, apparently defeated at the hands of Rome and their means of capital punishment used against rebel groups that was designed to “keep the peace” amongst subject peoples, which would cause a great many to view Him as another failed messianic aspirant who had been overcome by the Roman “peace”.