Jam. 2:1-4 has traditionally been understood as describing an act of discrimination against a poor person in favor of a rich one in the context of a worship service. There are indications, however, that the scene is an early synagogue court. Here is an excerpt from my forthcoming commentary on this vivid letter.
“While this passage has been usually applied to discrimination in public worship, the context may point to another explanation. In an influential article, R.B. Ward argued that the scene in this passage is not a worship service but a ‘court’ session to render judgment on a case brought before it. James condemns the partiality of those who are “judges” (κριταὶ) who “made discriminatory distinctions” (διεκρίθητε). The paronomasia is evident in the original language. The reference in 2:6 to the poor being drawn into “courts” (κριτήρια) continues the semantic chain of κρι- lexemes and further supports this view in the context. Furthermore, the OT warning about showing partiality (Jam. 2:1) was addressed to Israel’s judges (Deut.1:17; Lev.19:15). Ward also cited striking linguistic and social parallels, although from later Rabbinic materials. While a legitimate application of the partiality principle can certainly be applied to the favoring of the rich in their seating assignments in the assembly‟s “pews,” it appears that the passage makes much more sense if we imagine the assembly leaders gathered to decide cases (see Matt.18:15-17; 1 Cor.6:1-6). Perhaps the unjust way in which the rich landowners withheld pay to their day laborers, so strongly condemned in Jam. 5:1-6, was the kind of legal issue that was being handled in this scene. As is so true today, it is in legal proceedings that the poor often suffer discrimination because they do not have an adequate recourse available to them. While that may happen in secular contexts, James insists that it must not happen among those who believe in the Lord of Glory who became poor for our sake. Jesus’ specific contribution to this issue and James’ application of it follows in the next sub-paragraph (Jam. 2:5-8).”
Finally, this approach to Jam. 2:1-4 adds some specific application to what appears to be a general admonition in 2:12, 13. There James rounds off his entire argument with another reference to judging and not showing mercy. “Speak and act as those who are going to be judged (κρίνεσθαι) by the law that gives freedom, because judgment (κρίσις) without mercy will be shown to anyone who has not been merciful. Mercy triumphs over judgment (κρίσεως).”
(R.B. Ward, “Partiality in the Assembly,” Harvard Theological Review 62 (1969), 87-97)
In my research I discovered that Ward was not the first to suggest this interpretation. I traced it back as far as Daniel Whitby in his commentary on James in 1712!
nota bene !