Acts 12: Supplemental Thoughts on James and Peter

I have written about James’ death in some detail here, here, here, and here. The last post I entitled “Final Thoughts.” But as is often the case with Scripture, we simply are never done exploring the things written there. There is more to consider with the death of James.

Remember Luke has claimed he is documenting facts from eyewitnesses or eyewitness accounts. He asserts these events are true, issuing out of and in connection with the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and His ascension, and in the coming of the Holy Spirit to earth.

When James was executed, approximately 15 years of apostolic work had transpired with a fair amount of that activity in and around Jerusalem. Then, Herod Agrippa began to harass some from the church. Why then and not before, we aren’t told.

And then he killed James, John’s brother, with the sword. When he saw how much that pleased the Jews, he arrested Peter with the intention of putting him to death also, but it was a feast time, and Peter’s execution would have to be delayed.

James’ death would be a real test of the authenticity of the message that Jesus rose again from the dead. James was apparently put to death for his testimony—he did not recant. Herod Agrippa put James to death because he was in fact a public representative of Jesus Christ. From Herod’s point of view, that James was a bona fide witness made the execution so politically advantageous in his relationship with the Jews. For the Jews and Herod, James’ death was a real prize—that is, a warning to others that this is what happens to those who proclaim the Name of Jesus. James would only be a prize for Herod and the Jews if he had in fact maintained his witness throughout.

The next time we hear from Peter in Luke’s narrative is at the council of Jerusalem about 5 years later, when Peter rebuts the circumcision party by reminding the Jewish Christians of God’s appearing to the Gentiles at the first (referring to Cornelius). Why is the location and timing of that council important?

If this report of Christ’s resurrection from the dead (and all that followed) were a sham, a conspiratorial fabrication, why would Peter remain in Jerusalem either before James’ death or after James’ death? The fabric of lies could readily be unwound by tugging on a single thread—the resurrection of Jesus bodily from the tomb. These facts, which James and Peter proclaimed, were testable with not a whole lot of investigation.

Golgotha, the tomb, Mary, Martha, and Lazarus, for example, the other apostles—all were all near enough to interrogate. There were multiple witnesses to Jesus’ resurrection other than James and Peter to confirm whether these two witnesses were being truthful. In other words, if you were inclined to make an investigation, like Luke did, plenty of material to conduct a thorough examination was available. James and Peter had not run away; they were found without much fuss by Herod Agrippa.

Whatever danger was apparent for proclaiming Jesus had risen from the dead (and as Peter and Stephen had attested been put to death by the Jews), James and Peter had disregarded it. All to conspire to maintain a fraud they committed in the very place where you could walk to the tomb of Joseph of Arimathea?

15 years of “devoting themselves to the apostles' teaching and to fellowship, to the breaking of bread and to prayer” and “never ceasing to teach and proclaim the good news that Jesus is the Messiah, day after day, in the temple courts and from house to house,” is an extended, very long, period of time for the zealous opponents of the good news (zealous and motivated enough to arresting Peter and John, arresting the apostles, stoning Stephen to death, and deputizing Saul to throwing many into prison) to find Jesus’ body or otherwise refute the claims that Jesus rose again from the dead or explain how the miracles that Jesus performed were still happening after his supposed death.

If this testimony of the bodily resurrection of Jesus were false, would Peter have maintained that testimony after James was executed? What would be the point? Why keep pushing the lie forward?

These people were not agents of social or political unrest; there is no evidence that they were disrupting the order of the day or rioting or setting up barricades in the streets to protest the religious or secular governments in Jerusalem. Instead, it appears they were at peace with the people in Jerusalem, at least as much as it depended on them. (See e.g., 2:47, 5:13). So, what point were the apostles trying to drive home if not societal or political change such that James and Peter were going to die for it (and James did)?

Think about this for a second. They proclaimed Jesus had risen from the dead. They weren’t protesting in the streets, burning cars, smashing store windows, and confronting the police. And for that testimony, the utterance of a few words, they were arrested, and put to death? Who did that testimony adversely impact such that some reacted violently to the allegation that Jesus was alive? Everyone.

Everyone is undone by it really; some are threatened while others are hopeful. I am curious why that same testimony doesn’t shock anymore us. It seems we are largely indifferent to Jesus and anything he could be said to have accomplished. Then, pre-Enlightenment, both Jew and Gentile understood the challenge raised by the oral testimony that Jesus has risen: that would be, who is Lord, or who has the final say, or who governs this life? Rome, Caesar, High Priest, Moses, you, me, or the One whom God made both Christ and Lord?

Why keep saying these words if they offend so greatly? What did Peter gain by doing so?

James’ death must have struck closer to home for Peter than Stephen’s death did. Peter and James lived and worked side-by-side well before Jesus stood on the shores of the Sea. They had traveled with Jesus, been up on the Mount of Transfiguration, eaten together the Last Supper, had their feet washed together, slept in the garden, and fled together after Jesus’ arrest. And yet, they stayed together around a Risen Jesus.

Peter’s continued testimony after James’ death tells us something doesn’t it? James believed it was true that Jesus had risen from the dead. Peter did too, unswayed by the death of his friend and brother. Is that all that can be said about these two gentlemen, “Well, they believed they had seen the risen Jesus?”

I must say, that’s ridiculous. There is no evidence over the course of the 40 years from Jesus’ claimed resurrection to the destruction of Jerusalem to refute these eyewitnesses. So, when the Jewish authorities rejoiced at James’ death, weren’t they then motivated to mitigate the potential impact of James-as-a-martyr’s death, and find that body, or arrest and torture James’s associates, with Herod’s help, to give up its location? What did they find? They had the empty tomb; that was never disputed. So, what did they find?

*******

Note:: I do believe that the resurrection of Jesus Christ could have been reasoned out, or at least determined by a reasonably inquiry. But, it is important to point out that God didn’t rely on oral testimony alone. He underscored the evidence of multiple witnesses with signs and wonders (healing of lame man at temple gate, healing of Aeneas, raising up of Tabitha). Luke records that everyone was filled with awe at the many wonders and signs performed by the apostles. (Acts 2:43). As a result, people brought the sick into the streets and laid them on beds and mats so that at least Peter’s shadow might fall on some of them as he passed by.  Crowds gathered also from the towns around Jerusalem, bringing their sick and those tormented by impure spirits, and all of them were healed. (Acts 5:12, 15-16).

In response to the believers’ prayers, the Lord did stretch out his hand to heal and perform signs and wonders through the name of Jesus, (Acts 4:29-30) and with His great power the apostles continued to testify to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus. And God’s grace was so powerfully at work in them all. (Acts 4:33).