Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

virtual courtroom, where "justice" had an evil eye. 221 Imagine the only place,
where justice should be blind, an “ugly 20-20 vision” is in evidence! This
backdrop consideration makes the partial treatment even more grievous! The
fact that according to Jewish practice litigants are always supposed to stand
before a sitting judge (R. B. Ward, quoted in Laws, 101), until justice is
served, aggravates the matter even further. In James 2 the poor are tucked
away under a chair, or told to stand on the outside looking in. No justice for
them. This is manifestly “perverse” (Manton, 189)!
Leviticus 19:15, 18 suggest a further perspective upon the phrase,
“judges of evil thoughts.” The context condemns injustice, based upon discriminating
distinctions, in general. It violates the requirement of a righteous
judgment anywhere and everywhere (Lev. 19:15). It also violates the duty to
apply the standard of love across the board (Lev. 19:18). The bottom-line is
fully predictable. Discriminating distinctions turn James’ addressees into
“judges,” who have corrupt motives (Newman), harbor corrupt intentions
(Manton, 189), use corrupt reasonings (Bauer), apply corrupt standards
(NEB), make corrupt decisions (Laws, 102) (2:4), and end up with corrupt
verdicts (Moo, 1985, 105). The phrase translated in the KJV as “evil
thoughts” can mean all that, and it would not be surprising if it, indeed, intends
to convey all these aspects!
While, therefore, the phrase does not necessitate the “court session" interpretation
(Nystrom, 116), I nevertheless wish to stress that the use of the
term “judges,” even if the scenario is not a courtroom setting, underscores the
seriousness of the situation. “Judges” have a special responsibility to avoid
double standards (Lev. 19:15), and to nip “evil thoughts” in the bud! These
“evil thoughts” may flow forth from an unregenerate heart (Gen. 6:5; Mt.
15:19). It is also possible that they are the product of indwelling sin in the believer,
just as David’s “evil thoughts” in a different context (1 Sam. 11:2ff).
At any rate, they have got to go (1 Sam. 12:7ff; Ps. 51:1ff; Is. 55:7; Rom.
9:13). A poor man, who is a good man, may not be valued less because he is
poor, nor may a rich man, who is evil, be valued more because he is rich
(Henry, III, 1292). It is noteworthy that the author picks up on this general
theme again in James 4:11-13, and puts a breathtaking capstone on it.
Of course, the urgent question now is how to counter discriminatory attitudes
and patterns of behavior. To scream “discrimination!” will not quite
do it. James shows the way, as he uses a two-step approach, two lines of argument
that build on one another. The first one is preliminary, practical,
221 Burdick, 178, points out that “the word translated “discriminated (diekrithete) is built on
the same root as the word for “judges” (kritai).” Therefore in judging between folks the way
they did, James’ readers had become unjust judges!
479