Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

in James 2:2 the one individual does not force the other one. Clearly James
2:2 has a totally different flavor.
In short, in this text James does not introduce litigants, but rather two
folks, whether members of the covenant community or, much more likely,
occasional visitors, who enter into a worship service. 220 The one in his customary
fashion, as the Greek indicates, is “dressed to kill,” and is eyed with
lots of attention, possibly with a touch of envy (Zodhiates, I, 155-156). The
other, quite the opposite, poverty stricken, shabby, if not dirty and unsightly
(Kistemaker, 73), is hardly worth more than a casual glance. What happens
then is portrayed as appalling and detestable. Both are apparently “directed to
their (previously?) assigned seats” (Brosend, 58).
The first one, a gold-ringed gentleman, gets special attention and preferential
treatment (Moo, 1985, 89). He is personally ushered to the front, receives
a seat of honor in quite a Pharisaical fashion (Mt. 23:6; Mk. 12:39; Lk.
11:43; 20:46), and is totally “integrated.” “Have a seat, please” (Mitton, 80;
Burdick, 178 with a reference to Lk. 9:38), or more precisely, “Sit here--it is
an excellent seat” (So Phillips, quoted in Mitton, 83). The Greek equivalent
of the word, “please,” indicates that he gets the red carpet treatment with a
red carpet attitude. One commentator surmises that people appear to make a
fuss about rich visitors, whether in terms of possessions or status, because
they seem to regard them, in contrast to the “poor,” as a genuine catch and a
special trophy (Barclays, 76). “Celebrity status” in ancient times apparently
hurt as little then as it does today. It ever was, ever is, and ever will be a
temptation to prize association with moguls of fortune, tycoons of industry
and magnates of business for societal standing, if not financial gain, and “to
hobnob” with the famous, such as ranking politicians, sport heroes and movie
stars, in order to share in their status and bask in their glory (Keddie, 94).
220 Cargal, 111-112, views the questions “whether the example provided in James 2:2-4 reflects
an actual event within the life of the community or is simply a stereotypical example,
and whether it is set against a special judicial assembly or the gathering of the community in
worship,” as “illustrative of the attempt (on the part of historical critical scholars) to read the
Epistle ‘from the outside in.’” He counsels them in the words of Felder, to “examine the possible
implications of James’ stylized exaggerations in the contrast of the apparel and treatment
accorded to the two characters depicted in vv. 2-3, since through this device the author may
be attempting to dramatize the fraudulent actions of the assembly.” Not only do we once
again encounter a false disjunction, as if a preoccupation with the details of a text and the
grasp of the thrust of a text are mutually exclusive. We are also reminded once again of Cargal’s
exclusive focus upon the “convictions” of the author which the latter seeks to get across
to his readers come what may, even if it takes clear-cut exaggerations to succeed. James ends
up as an all too human affair that cannot possibly permit anyone to recognize, present and apply
its message as the very Word of God!
475