This is the last we hear of James, and even that comes without mention of his name. This is characteristic of John’s gospel, that neither he nor his brother are ever named directly. If he speaks of them at all, it is as the sons of Zebedee. But, with the input of the other three accounts, there is not all that much more we learn about James the man. We know a few occasions at which he was present. But, the Gospels are quite rightly focused on the ministry of Jesus, not the activities of those attendant upon Him. The Apostles are a necessary feature of that ministry, and it is certainly a critical matter for the authors of these texts to establish that unique authority which resided in the Apostles as witnesses to all that Jesus had done, and more critically, as witnesses commissioned by His immediate command.

We know, also, that James joins Peter and John as forming Jesus’ inner circle. What we should make of this fact is not so clear. Given the Gospel accounts, none of these three men seem to have anything in particular to recommend them. Indeed, it would seem Nathanael, who at least recognized and proclaimed Messiah upon his first meeting Jesus, would be a more natural choice. But, Jesus chooses these three, Peter, James and John. Of the other two, there is sufficient record that the choice of them proved wise. Between them, we see much about the responsibility and character of those who are given to shepherd the people of God. We have Peter’s great concern for his charges. We have John’s jealous guardianship of Truth, as well as his clear understanding of the scope of God’s love as it has been expressed in Christ. But, James? We know he was martyred early. That’s about it.

If he was part of Jesus’ inner circle, part of that most trusted – or at least most privileged – rank, it would seem reasonable to suppose that God had big plans for this one. It certainly proved true for Peter and John. But James? Nothing. Was he somehow foundational in setting the church on its feet there at the start? There’s no signs of it. Luke’s coverage of that period clearly demonstrates that Peter is at the helm, with John in support. James, it seems, is always present, but never prominent.

Looking back across my notes over the years, I was reminded of the oddness of this fact. Jesus has invested so much in this man. He has had the more intensive training. He has been privy to that final bit of instruction on Olivet. For God to have so heavily invested in him, and to have him just barely outlive Jesus? It is difficult to see the plan and purpose to that. Is God really so willing to waste His time and energy in this fashion? Well, He certainly expends enough on me. But, to have this man who was so trusted, so prepared, so groomed for leadership meet so untimely an end; it shocks. It befuddles. Quite frankly, it utterly destroys some of the misconceptions of faith.

This is the point that had hit me back when I first made note of this (October 2008, by my notes). It was particularly apt in that moment because there was this teaching running through the church at the time that suggested God would never allow a man to pass from this life before his work was done. Now, there is clearly a sense in which this statement is valid. No man ever departed this life except on God’s schedule. Of course, that applies as fully to the worst reprobate as to the finest saint. Does this indicate that said person’s work is done? It may not even indicate that there was any particular work they were ever going to do, so far as God’s purposes are concerned. And, this too, I fear, applies equally to saint and reprobate. There are certainly any number of believers, and I would even say believers who rightfully believe themselves counted amongst the elect, who go through their renewed life without ever really doing much for the kingdom, at least in terms we would recognize. Scripture speaks of those who will get in, but as though by fire.

So, then, to mark death as proof that one’s work on earth is done? Seems an over-simplification. Was there really no more that James might have accomplished for the kingdom had he lived? We cannot possibly know, can we? We can, looking at Hezekiah’s example, discern that there is no wisdom in beseeching God for years beyond what He has planned. Many look to his example as proving the power of prayer. I look at it as proving the folly of rejecting God’s word. He was told now was the time, and he insisted God give him a few more years. God did. But, those years undid most of the good Hezekiah had done in all the years preceding. Had he gone home when he was called, his record would have been much better. As it is, God granted him his will, albeit in subjection to God’s purposes, and those final years contributed mightily to the coming of Babylon as God’s instrument of rebuke.

In James’ case, though, we might suppose he had no choice in the matter. But, could he not just as easily have prayed? Could he not have plead just as long and hard that he would be spared from Herod’s treachery? It worked for Peter. Why not him? Well, one thing we know of these Apostles: They did not fear death for the sake of Christ. If we accept the tales of Peter’s death, his concern was not with dying, but rather with being granted too much honor in his death by being crucified in the same fashion as Jesus. He was unworthy of such honor! James, awaiting the fall of the sword upon his neck, may have felt little cause to pray for anything more than that he would honor Christ in his death. Is it not just possible that this was precisely the purpose of his life? Here was the first martyr. There would be many more. The will yet be many more. The news tells us this fact every night, even though they fail to see what they are reporting.

So, then, that message about God not letting us pass before our work is done? True enough, I suppose, but who’s to say what our work is? His watch over us is not, never has been, never will be, some sort of life preserver ensuring us of long life and abundant health. That whole message runs absolutely counter to Scripture! Long life and health and wealth? No, no. The message to us is clear: In this life you will have tribulations. You will be hated on account of My name. Even to these Apostles, what did Jesus say? You will indeed drink the cup that I must drink.

Here, then, is something that we might assign some significance. In the brothers Zebedee we are presented with both the first and the last of the Apostles. James would be the first to pass to his reward, and John would outlive them all, even his friend Peter, even that Apostle called late, Paul. In many ways, we might say that John suffered more than them all. That exile to Patmos could not have been pleasant. It was certainly not designed to be. And yet, for all he suffered, he was entrusted with the conclusion of the story of redemption, that we might know of it.

But, this is not yet John’s story. It is the story of James. Can they be separated? They never were in the Gospels. With one exception, if we are told of John then James is there. And always, if James is mentioned, there is John at his side. What we know of either is minimal, but James the more so, in that we have so little of his later life to add to knowledge. It seems that the chief fact, the sole distinguishing feature that we might assign to him is that fact already noted: He was the first martyr of the church. If this was indeed his purpose, then the record of the Church down through the ages would seem to indicate that he served his purpose well. Certainly, the Apostles to a man proved unafraid of such an end. And not only they, but the first generation or two of leaders to follow after them! These men did not shrink back from being slain for their devotion to Christ. Far from it! In several cases, we find them practically seeking the opportunity to be so honored by those who thought to destroy them.

And what shall we say of our own record? Let me set down this one quote from the ISBE describing James, and offering some explanation for why Herod might single him out. “The vehemence and fanaticism which were characteristic of James had made him to be feared and hated among the Jewish enemies of the Christians.” Now, I doubt not we could all think of some examples of those who have gone out in the name of Christ and acted offensively. We can probably come up with examples from that number who were proud of their obnoxiousness, thinking it somehow proved their devotion. We might think, for example, of the vile example set by those folks of Westboro Baptist ‘church’ protesting at soldier’s funerals and thinking somehow their disrespect honors God. But, that’s not the description for the example of the early Christians. They did not seek to offend. Indeed, following Paul’s instruction, they would be exemplary citizens. However, they would not allow the civil law to command their disobedience to heavenly law. They recalled that their primary citizenship was not in Rome or some Roman colony, but in heaven. They had, if you will, dual citizenship, but of those two there was no doubt whatsoever in their minds as to which ranked higher.

So, then: His vehemence and fanaticism made him feared. But, I think we must recognize that this is not quite the same vehemence and fanaticism that earned him the moniker of “son of thunder.” He had grown since that time, as had his brother. They remained fiercely devoted to Christ, and to Truth. But, they were not in the same category as those zealots who would throw their lives away charging the Roman troops, or what have you, thinking themselves to be doing a service to God. Not at all. They were not, for all that, like those who would later take upon themselves a vow before God in the matter of killing Paul. They were zealous, vehement in faith, fanatical in support of Truth. But, all of that was now channeled towards not only speaking a true witness of Christ, but living it. That is the thing that made him feared. He was not spouting empty words, but living as he spoke, and that would never do.

We might wonder at the devotion James and John felt towards Jesus. I have speculated in the past that this might well be something that flows from family experience. The two are close, as brothers go. Compare with Peter and Andrew. Those two clearly have their separate styles, separate identities. Most of the time, when we read about Peter, Andrew is not mentioned. But, James and John? The two seem nearly inseparable. If one is around, count on the other being there. This persists up until that time when Jesus, maybe preparing John for his brother’s death, has John working together with Peter. But, that is John’s story, not the story of James. As concerns James, he seems to share much of that fiery loyalty his brother shows. They are both, after all, given the name, “sons of thunder.”

Where did this loyalty come from? Well, given that they are so often spoken of as the sons of Zebedee, their father, and given that they are first found working together with him in the family business, it would hardly be a stretch to see this as a particularly close-knit family. And, what they learned from familial experience, they brought to their discipleship. Just as we, with our varied pasts, bear our pasts with us as we enter into fellowship with Christ. We, as they, bring our own set of strengths and weaknesses. Jesus, the Master Craftsman, must work in and upon us that our weaknesses may be made strengths, and that our strengths may be tempered and toned so as not to become temptations to pride.

James had his strengths. He had his zeal, his devotion, his determination. If we were to suppose that Jesus chose His disciples as we might choose our co-workers, it would seem he saw these strengths in James. If so, He doubtless saw them as potentials. This one has potential to lead, potential to shepherd. To be sure, these strengths, these talents, need training, need honing, but the raw materials are there. I would not think it a stretch to say that even as Jesus chooses His disciples with a more than human eye, with the guidance of the Holy Spirit to aid, still He sees potential. If, which is not necessarily the case, He also knew at that stage what would become of James, one can imagine a certain sorrow in the choosing. But, it is not entirely clear that Jesus had such complete knowledge of the course He would travel. Did He know He must die to complete His mission? Yes, I believe He did, at least by the time He was beginning His ministry. But, did He know every last detail of how this was going to work, and what would come after? Not necessarily.

Back to James. He brings this familial loyalty to the life of a disciple, and why wouldn’t he? The relationship of disciple to Teacher was not so very different after all. He was looking to One he saw as a fit model for his own life and character. He was a follower. Where Jesus went, he went. What he saw Jesus do, he sought to do. Becoming convinced of the greater truth of just Who this Jesus was, is it any wonder at all that he would develop so strong a commitment, so fierce a defense of his Mentor, his Messiah? I think not. Indeed, within the proper bounds of Scripture, may we be so fierce to defend His Truth against every lie! May we be swift to denounce the lies that would supplant His Word, even doing so in loving hope for the rescue of the liar. May we be careful as to our own words, that they would express a true understanding of His words, and that they would be a true expression of our own character having determined to be like our Lord and King.

One final item of possible interest regarding James, which also applies to John, is that these men were descended from both the tribe of Judah and the tribe of Levi. If the historians are correct, his mother was of the tribe of Judah and his father was a Levite. So, in these two men we would also have something of temple and throne room combined. To be abundantly clear, they were not fit to be either priest or king by the old order. The lines of descent, I believe, were not through the appropriate parent. But, the training a son of the Levites would receive! No, I don’t delude myself into thinking that every member of the Levitical line received training in the order of temple service. But, isn’t it possible these two did?

If I remember correctly, there was also the suggestion that these two were related to John the Baptist in some fashion. If so, then they would also have been relatives of Jesus, according to the flesh. How fitting it would be, that these servants of the Priest King were of both priestly and royal stock themselves. But, I do not want to pursue this more than is suitable. It ventures, I think, too far into the speculative with not enough firm foundation.

Let us leave James with this thought: He was devoted to Jesus from the start, and sufficiently devoted that, when called upon to lay down his own life for the sake of Christ, he saw it as no burden, but rather an honor. It was an honor, though one we might find hard to long after for ourselves. He was entrusted with being the first to face death for his faith, for his Savior. And let us understand it in that light. This was the mission. This was the thing James was made for, just as Jesus was born to die. He was chosen of God to be the first martyr. It was not accidental. It was not random chance. James, whatever else we may know or think we know about him, was the one Jesus could trust to face this great trial and stand firm, even unto death. James, by his martyrdom, would serve as the model for all those martyrs who must follow, his fellow Apostles foremost amongst them. This was, at some level, what God saw in him, what God fashioned in him, the strength to face down death, knowing that death could not win.

May we be so faithful in facing our purpose for the kingdom, whether it be death for His name’s sake, or something perhaps more palatable to us. It is not the nature of the service which ought to attract us and give us joy in serving. It is the fact of service. It is the fact that God has set this thing before us that we might do it, doing our part in His kingdom for His good purpose according to His perfect will.