By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in ... more By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in 1 John did not have to do with a later complex Christological issue such as docetism, Cerinthianism, or a devaluation of the historical life/death of Jesus, but rather concerned the foundational belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, a tenet the secessionists had renounced in order to return to the Jewish synagogue. He critiques the common maximalistic mirror-reading approach to the letter as misguided, and contends that the letter is primarily pastoral, meant to comfort and reassure the community rather than to argue against the secessionists. Streett’s main contributions are his detailed examination of the ancient historical evidence (especially the Patristic evidence) for the Johannine opponents, and his in-depth and innovative exegesis of the key opponent passages (1 Jn 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 Jn 4–11).
My goal in this article is to explore the ways in which early Christian discourse on Jesus’ resur... more My goal in this article is to explore the ways in which early Christian discourse on Jesus’ resurrection and its implications has a clearly anti- or counter-imperial texture. My survey of the counter-imperial nature of resurrection hope begins in the Old Testament, which funds much of the early Christian message. I will then touch upon several key texts in the Gospels, Paul, and the Apocalypse that express the heart of the resurrection message as the replacement of the Roman regime with the righteous empire of God.
Because 1 John never directly quotes the Old Testament, it is often asserted that letter offers n... more Because 1 John never directly quotes the Old Testament, it is often asserted that letter offers no real insight into the way that early followers of Jesus read their Scriptures. More recently, however, scholars (e.g. J. Lieu) have questioned this consensus by pointing to the extensive use of OT concepts, images, and symbols. In this paper, I supplement this challenge by proposing Deuteronomy 13 as the key subtext for the letter’s treatment of community opponents.
Deuteronomy 13 describes “sons of belial” who go out to deceive their fellow Israelites by enticing them to transgress the covenant through idolatry. The text commands that such false prophets be put to death without mercy. I argue that 1 John 2:18–24 and 4:1–6—the key opponent passages—apply this OT text eschatologically in order to shape the community’s own response to the secessionist crisis.
Special attention is paid to a) elements in the text of Deut 13 which may have suggested an eschatological understanding of the text, b) the relationship between the Deuteronomic subtext and the puzzling and abrupt injunction against idolatry which concludes the epistle (1 John 5:21), and c) the way that Deuteronomy 13 may inform our understanding of a classic exegetical crux, namely the “sin unto death” (1 John 5:16–17).
Festivals were commonly viewed in the ancient Mediterranean as an opportunity for humans to parti... more Festivals were commonly viewed in the ancient Mediterranean as an opportunity for humans to participate in the life of the gods, who are perpetually feasting. Thus Plato (Laws 653d) says that festivals are a gift from the gods, allowing humans “to be made whole again” by “participating in the festivals alongside the gods” (suneortazein en tais eortais meta theōn). The concept of divine mimesis is used to explain the banqueting, liturgy, leisure, and reenactment of divine exploits that accompanied festivals in the Hellenistic world.
In this paper, I examine Philo’s interpretation of the Jewish festivals in light of this tradition. Special attention is paid to: a) the ways in which Philo attempts to distance Jewish feasting from Greek feasting by characterizing the former as askesis, b) Philo’s use of rewritten bible traditions in his descriptions of the festivals, c) Philo’s numerological understanding of the festal calendar, especially in relation to other Hellenistic numerological thought, and d) the possible relationship between Philo and apocalyptic traditions (such as Jubilees) in which Israel’s festivals are depicted as having a heavenly pre-existence, so that Israel’s festival observance is understood as imitatio angelorum.
It is widely recognized that Israel’s festivals figure prominently in the NT work known as the Le... more It is widely recognized that Israel’s festivals figure prominently in the NT work known as the Letter to the Hebrews. Most scholars, naturally, have focused on Yom Kippur, although G. Gelardini has recently proposed Tisha Be-Av as the key festal backdrop for the letter. In this paper, I discuss Heb 12:22, which contrasts Israel’s assembly at Mt. Sinai with early Christians’ figurative approach to Mt. Zion. The passage depicts Mt. Zion as the “heavenly Jerusalem” where “myriads of angels” are gathered in a festival celebration (panegyris). Surprisingly, scholars have almost uniformly failed to read this passage in relation to the letter’s overall reception of Israel’s Jewish festivals and priestly cultus.
I propose to read this passage, and the letter as whole, in the context of Jewish traditions that understood Israel’s festivals to have an angelic, heavenly, counterpart. Important evidence for this can be found, inter alia, in a) Jub. 6:17–18, which states that the Feast of Weeks had been celebrated in heaven from creation until the deluge; b) Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. XIII.6, who discusses a heavenly Rosh Hashanah; and c) 4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which narrates an angelic liturgy. When read in this context, Heb 12:22–23 is understood as belonging to a tradition of Judaism which interpreted Israel’s festivals apocalyptically and eschatologically. Hebrews 12, then, should be treated as important evidence for the way some early Christian communities negotiated their relationship with Jewish festal ideology and praxis.
Galatians 3:13, which states that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a cur... more Galatians 3:13, which states that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” is a traditional crux in Pauline studies. Virtually every word and phrase has been subject to (sometimes tortuous) examination by exegetes and commentators.
In this paper, I examine three key elements of the text in order to argue that:
a) Paul deliberately says that Christ “became a curse” rather than “became accursed.” His language evokes the OT covenantal threat that sinful Israel would become a curse and a byword among the nations. Paul is not, therefore, claiming that God (or the Law) cursed Christ, as is so often claimed. I adduce two key linguistic parallels from early Greek texts (Protevangelium of James and Acts of Thomas) to demonstrate that “becoming a curse” refers to a loss of social status as opposed to becoming the object of divine wrath.
b) Paul does not cite Deut 21:23 in order to establish that everyone who is crucified is divinely cursed. I examine early Jewish (and Christian) readings of Deut 21:23 to establish that no one believed crucifixion per se brought God’s curse on the victim. Indeed, Paul slightly but significantly modifies the wording of the verse (changing κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεου to ἐπικατάρατος) to steer the audience away from this misunderstanding.
c) Modern readers miss the point of Paul’s statement because they approach the text with questions about the mechanics of the atonement. I urge that the passage should rather be read as a description of the status loss (“becoming a curse”) Jesus underwent in order to redeem Israel. The passage is thus akin to Phil 2:5–9 and other texts which do not provide a theory of atonement so much as they describe the social texture of Christ’s shameful death.
James 2:1–9 pictures an early Jewish-Christian assembly (sunagoge) where favoritism toward the ri... more James 2:1–9 pictures an early Jewish-Christian assembly (sunagoge) where favoritism toward the rich shames the poor and violates the royal law of liberty. While the setting for this scene (the “assembly”) has usually been taken as an early Christian “worship service,” recent scholarship (Ward/Allison) has resurrected the older view that James envisions a legal setting, i.e. an ecclesiastical court of sorts.
I argue instead that James 2:1–9 should be understood as a hypothetical scene from an early Jewish-Christian communal meal. This yields the following:
1) Most importantly, it explains why the issue of seating/location is the focal point of the discussion.
2) It explains the social import of the instructions given to the poor man to stand (slaves stood as “waiters” at ancient meals/symposia), or to “sit down as/under my footstool” (perhaps like a dog, waiting for scraps from the table).
3) My reading finds a clear parallel to James 2 in 1 Cor 11:17–34, where Paul addresses much the same issue, namely the role of social status (honor/shame, wealth/poverty) in the communal meal, and employs much the same theological strategy, arguing that such behavior is inconsistent with faithfulness to Jesus (cf. James 2:1).
4) It suggests that James may be invoking the Jesus tradition found in the two parables of Luke 14. Luke 14:7–11 concerns a wedding feast where one’s position at the table is the crucial signifier of honor or shame. Luke 14:12–14 encourages those who host meals to invite not the rich (perhaps to secure patronage), but the poor, who would be unable to repay them. James thus echoes the dominical teaching that God’s kingdom reverses society’s judgments concerning shame and honor. This is in line with James’ frequent use of Jesus-tradition, and further explains why he mentions Jesus’ example at the beginning of his discussion of favoritism (2:1).
By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in ... more By means of careful historical work and exegesis, Streett argues that the secession mentioned in 1 John did not have to do with a later complex Christological issue such as docetism, Cerinthianism, or a devaluation of the historical life/death of Jesus, but rather concerned the foundational belief in the Messiahship of Jesus, a tenet the secessionists had renounced in order to return to the Jewish synagogue. He critiques the common maximalistic mirror-reading approach to the letter as misguided, and contends that the letter is primarily pastoral, meant to comfort and reassure the community rather than to argue against the secessionists. Streett’s main contributions are his detailed examination of the ancient historical evidence (especially the Patristic evidence) for the Johannine opponents, and his in-depth and innovative exegesis of the key opponent passages (1 Jn 2:18–27; 4:1–6; 5:6–12; 2 Jn 4–11).
My goal in this article is to explore the ways in which early Christian discourse on Jesus’ resur... more My goal in this article is to explore the ways in which early Christian discourse on Jesus’ resurrection and its implications has a clearly anti- or counter-imperial texture. My survey of the counter-imperial nature of resurrection hope begins in the Old Testament, which funds much of the early Christian message. I will then touch upon several key texts in the Gospels, Paul, and the Apocalypse that express the heart of the resurrection message as the replacement of the Roman regime with the righteous empire of God.
Because 1 John never directly quotes the Old Testament, it is often asserted that letter offers n... more Because 1 John never directly quotes the Old Testament, it is often asserted that letter offers no real insight into the way that early followers of Jesus read their Scriptures. More recently, however, scholars (e.g. J. Lieu) have questioned this consensus by pointing to the extensive use of OT concepts, images, and symbols. In this paper, I supplement this challenge by proposing Deuteronomy 13 as the key subtext for the letter’s treatment of community opponents.
Deuteronomy 13 describes “sons of belial” who go out to deceive their fellow Israelites by enticing them to transgress the covenant through idolatry. The text commands that such false prophets be put to death without mercy. I argue that 1 John 2:18–24 and 4:1–6—the key opponent passages—apply this OT text eschatologically in order to shape the community’s own response to the secessionist crisis.
Special attention is paid to a) elements in the text of Deut 13 which may have suggested an eschatological understanding of the text, b) the relationship between the Deuteronomic subtext and the puzzling and abrupt injunction against idolatry which concludes the epistle (1 John 5:21), and c) the way that Deuteronomy 13 may inform our understanding of a classic exegetical crux, namely the “sin unto death” (1 John 5:16–17).
Festivals were commonly viewed in the ancient Mediterranean as an opportunity for humans to parti... more Festivals were commonly viewed in the ancient Mediterranean as an opportunity for humans to participate in the life of the gods, who are perpetually feasting. Thus Plato (Laws 653d) says that festivals are a gift from the gods, allowing humans “to be made whole again” by “participating in the festivals alongside the gods” (suneortazein en tais eortais meta theōn). The concept of divine mimesis is used to explain the banqueting, liturgy, leisure, and reenactment of divine exploits that accompanied festivals in the Hellenistic world.
In this paper, I examine Philo’s interpretation of the Jewish festivals in light of this tradition. Special attention is paid to: a) the ways in which Philo attempts to distance Jewish feasting from Greek feasting by characterizing the former as askesis, b) Philo’s use of rewritten bible traditions in his descriptions of the festivals, c) Philo’s numerological understanding of the festal calendar, especially in relation to other Hellenistic numerological thought, and d) the possible relationship between Philo and apocalyptic traditions (such as Jubilees) in which Israel’s festivals are depicted as having a heavenly pre-existence, so that Israel’s festival observance is understood as imitatio angelorum.
It is widely recognized that Israel’s festivals figure prominently in the NT work known as the Le... more It is widely recognized that Israel’s festivals figure prominently in the NT work known as the Letter to the Hebrews. Most scholars, naturally, have focused on Yom Kippur, although G. Gelardini has recently proposed Tisha Be-Av as the key festal backdrop for the letter. In this paper, I discuss Heb 12:22, which contrasts Israel’s assembly at Mt. Sinai with early Christians’ figurative approach to Mt. Zion. The passage depicts Mt. Zion as the “heavenly Jerusalem” where “myriads of angels” are gathered in a festival celebration (panegyris). Surprisingly, scholars have almost uniformly failed to read this passage in relation to the letter’s overall reception of Israel’s Jewish festivals and priestly cultus.
I propose to read this passage, and the letter as whole, in the context of Jewish traditions that understood Israel’s festivals to have an angelic, heavenly, counterpart. Important evidence for this can be found, inter alia, in a) Jub. 6:17–18, which states that the Feast of Weeks had been celebrated in heaven from creation until the deluge; b) Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. XIII.6, who discusses a heavenly Rosh Hashanah; and c) 4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which narrates an angelic liturgy. When read in this context, Heb 12:22–23 is understood as belonging to a tradition of Judaism which interpreted Israel’s festivals apocalyptically and eschatologically. Hebrews 12, then, should be treated as important evidence for the way some early Christian communities negotiated their relationship with Jewish festal ideology and praxis.
Galatians 3:13, which states that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a cur... more Galatians 3:13, which states that “Christ redeemed us from the curse of the law by becoming a curse for us,” is a traditional crux in Pauline studies. Virtually every word and phrase has been subject to (sometimes tortuous) examination by exegetes and commentators.
In this paper, I examine three key elements of the text in order to argue that:
a) Paul deliberately says that Christ “became a curse” rather than “became accursed.” His language evokes the OT covenantal threat that sinful Israel would become a curse and a byword among the nations. Paul is not, therefore, claiming that God (or the Law) cursed Christ, as is so often claimed. I adduce two key linguistic parallels from early Greek texts (Protevangelium of James and Acts of Thomas) to demonstrate that “becoming a curse” refers to a loss of social status as opposed to becoming the object of divine wrath.
b) Paul does not cite Deut 21:23 in order to establish that everyone who is crucified is divinely cursed. I examine early Jewish (and Christian) readings of Deut 21:23 to establish that no one believed crucifixion per se brought God’s curse on the victim. Indeed, Paul slightly but significantly modifies the wording of the verse (changing κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεου to ἐπικατάρατος) to steer the audience away from this misunderstanding.
c) Modern readers miss the point of Paul’s statement because they approach the text with questions about the mechanics of the atonement. I urge that the passage should rather be read as a description of the status loss (“becoming a curse”) Jesus underwent in order to redeem Israel. The passage is thus akin to Phil 2:5–9 and other texts which do not provide a theory of atonement so much as they describe the social texture of Christ’s shameful death.
James 2:1–9 pictures an early Jewish-Christian assembly (sunagoge) where favoritism toward the ri... more James 2:1–9 pictures an early Jewish-Christian assembly (sunagoge) where favoritism toward the rich shames the poor and violates the royal law of liberty. While the setting for this scene (the “assembly”) has usually been taken as an early Christian “worship service,” recent scholarship (Ward/Allison) has resurrected the older view that James envisions a legal setting, i.e. an ecclesiastical court of sorts.
I argue instead that James 2:1–9 should be understood as a hypothetical scene from an early Jewish-Christian communal meal. This yields the following:
1) Most importantly, it explains why the issue of seating/location is the focal point of the discussion.
2) It explains the social import of the instructions given to the poor man to stand (slaves stood as “waiters” at ancient meals/symposia), or to “sit down as/under my footstool” (perhaps like a dog, waiting for scraps from the table).
3) My reading finds a clear parallel to James 2 in 1 Cor 11:17–34, where Paul addresses much the same issue, namely the role of social status (honor/shame, wealth/poverty) in the communal meal, and employs much the same theological strategy, arguing that such behavior is inconsistent with faithfulness to Jesus (cf. James 2:1).
4) It suggests that James may be invoking the Jesus tradition found in the two parables of Luke 14. Luke 14:7–11 concerns a wedding feast where one’s position at the table is the crucial signifier of honor or shame. Luke 14:12–14 encourages those who host meals to invite not the rich (perhaps to secure patronage), but the poor, who would be unable to repay them. James thus echoes the dominical teaching that God’s kingdom reverses society’s judgments concerning shame and honor. This is in line with James’ frequent use of Jesus-tradition, and further explains why he mentions Jesus’ example at the beginning of his discussion of favoritism (2:1).
Uploads
Books by Daniel Streett
Papers by Daniel Streett
Deuteronomy 13 describes “sons of belial” who go out to deceive their fellow Israelites by enticing them to transgress the covenant through idolatry. The text commands that such false prophets be put to death without mercy. I argue that 1 John 2:18–24 and 4:1–6—the key opponent passages—apply this OT text eschatologically in order to shape the community’s own response to the secessionist crisis.
Special attention is paid to a) elements in the text of Deut 13 which may have suggested an eschatological understanding of the text, b) the relationship between the Deuteronomic subtext and the puzzling and abrupt injunction against idolatry which concludes the epistle (1 John 5:21), and c) the way that Deuteronomy 13 may inform our understanding of a classic exegetical crux, namely the “sin unto death” (1 John 5:16–17).
In this paper, I examine Philo’s interpretation of the Jewish festivals in light of this tradition. Special attention is paid to: a) the ways in which Philo attempts to distance Jewish feasting from Greek feasting by characterizing the former as askesis, b) Philo’s use of rewritten bible traditions in his descriptions of the festivals, c) Philo’s numerological understanding of the festal calendar, especially in relation to other Hellenistic numerological thought, and d) the possible relationship between Philo and apocalyptic traditions (such as Jubilees) in which Israel’s festivals are depicted as having a heavenly pre-existence, so that Israel’s festival observance is understood as imitatio angelorum.
I propose to read this passage, and the letter as whole, in the context of Jewish traditions that understood Israel’s festivals to have an angelic, heavenly, counterpart. Important evidence for this can be found, inter alia, in a) Jub. 6:17–18, which states that the Feast of Weeks had been celebrated in heaven from creation until the deluge; b) Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. XIII.6, who discusses a heavenly Rosh Hashanah; and c) 4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which narrates an angelic liturgy. When read in this context, Heb 12:22–23 is understood as belonging to a tradition of Judaism which interpreted Israel’s festivals apocalyptically and eschatologically. Hebrews 12, then, should be treated as important evidence for the way some early Christian communities negotiated their relationship with Jewish festal ideology and praxis.
In this paper, I examine three key elements of the text in order to argue that:
a) Paul deliberately says that Christ “became a curse” rather than “became accursed.” His language evokes the OT covenantal threat that sinful Israel would become a curse and a byword among the nations. Paul is not, therefore, claiming that God (or the Law) cursed Christ, as is so often claimed. I adduce two key linguistic parallels from early Greek texts (Protevangelium of James and Acts of Thomas) to demonstrate that “becoming a curse” refers to a loss of social status as opposed to becoming the object of divine wrath.
b) Paul does not cite Deut 21:23 in order to establish that everyone who is crucified is divinely cursed. I examine early Jewish (and Christian) readings of Deut 21:23 to establish that no one believed crucifixion per se brought God’s curse on the victim. Indeed, Paul slightly but significantly modifies the wording of the verse (changing κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεου to ἐπικατάρατος) to steer the audience away from this misunderstanding.
c) Modern readers miss the point of Paul’s statement because they approach the text with questions about the mechanics of the atonement. I urge that the passage should rather be read as a description of the status loss (“becoming a curse”) Jesus underwent in order to redeem Israel. The passage is thus akin to Phil 2:5–9 and other texts which do not provide a theory of atonement so much as they describe the social texture of Christ’s shameful death.
I argue instead that James 2:1–9 should be understood as a hypothetical scene from an early Jewish-Christian communal meal. This yields the following:
1) Most importantly, it explains why the issue of seating/location is the focal point of the discussion.
2) It explains the social import of the instructions given to the poor man to stand (slaves stood as “waiters” at ancient meals/symposia), or to “sit down as/under my footstool” (perhaps like a dog, waiting for scraps from the table).
3) My reading finds a clear parallel to James 2 in 1 Cor 11:17–34, where Paul addresses much the same issue, namely the role of social status (honor/shame, wealth/poverty) in the communal meal, and employs much the same theological strategy, arguing that such behavior is inconsistent with faithfulness to Jesus (cf. James 2:1).
4) It suggests that James may be invoking the Jesus tradition found in the two parables of Luke 14. Luke 14:7–11 concerns a wedding feast where one’s position at the table is the crucial signifier of honor or shame. Luke 14:12–14 encourages those who host meals to invite not the rich (perhaps to secure patronage), but the poor, who would be unable to repay them. James thus echoes the dominical teaching that God’s kingdom reverses society’s judgments concerning shame and honor. This is in line with James’ frequent use of Jesus-tradition, and further explains why he mentions Jesus’ example at the beginning of his discussion of favoritism (2:1).
Book Reviews by Daniel Streett
Deuteronomy 13 describes “sons of belial” who go out to deceive their fellow Israelites by enticing them to transgress the covenant through idolatry. The text commands that such false prophets be put to death without mercy. I argue that 1 John 2:18–24 and 4:1–6—the key opponent passages—apply this OT text eschatologically in order to shape the community’s own response to the secessionist crisis.
Special attention is paid to a) elements in the text of Deut 13 which may have suggested an eschatological understanding of the text, b) the relationship between the Deuteronomic subtext and the puzzling and abrupt injunction against idolatry which concludes the epistle (1 John 5:21), and c) the way that Deuteronomy 13 may inform our understanding of a classic exegetical crux, namely the “sin unto death” (1 John 5:16–17).
In this paper, I examine Philo’s interpretation of the Jewish festivals in light of this tradition. Special attention is paid to: a) the ways in which Philo attempts to distance Jewish feasting from Greek feasting by characterizing the former as askesis, b) Philo’s use of rewritten bible traditions in his descriptions of the festivals, c) Philo’s numerological understanding of the festal calendar, especially in relation to other Hellenistic numerological thought, and d) the possible relationship between Philo and apocalyptic traditions (such as Jubilees) in which Israel’s festivals are depicted as having a heavenly pre-existence, so that Israel’s festival observance is understood as imitatio angelorum.
I propose to read this passage, and the letter as whole, in the context of Jewish traditions that understood Israel’s festivals to have an angelic, heavenly, counterpart. Important evidence for this can be found, inter alia, in a) Jub. 6:17–18, which states that the Feast of Weeks had been celebrated in heaven from creation until the deluge; b) Pseudo-Philo, L.A.B. XIII.6, who discusses a heavenly Rosh Hashanah; and c) 4QSongs of the Sabbath Sacrifice, which narrates an angelic liturgy. When read in this context, Heb 12:22–23 is understood as belonging to a tradition of Judaism which interpreted Israel’s festivals apocalyptically and eschatologically. Hebrews 12, then, should be treated as important evidence for the way some early Christian communities negotiated their relationship with Jewish festal ideology and praxis.
In this paper, I examine three key elements of the text in order to argue that:
a) Paul deliberately says that Christ “became a curse” rather than “became accursed.” His language evokes the OT covenantal threat that sinful Israel would become a curse and a byword among the nations. Paul is not, therefore, claiming that God (or the Law) cursed Christ, as is so often claimed. I adduce two key linguistic parallels from early Greek texts (Protevangelium of James and Acts of Thomas) to demonstrate that “becoming a curse” refers to a loss of social status as opposed to becoming the object of divine wrath.
b) Paul does not cite Deut 21:23 in order to establish that everyone who is crucified is divinely cursed. I examine early Jewish (and Christian) readings of Deut 21:23 to establish that no one believed crucifixion per se brought God’s curse on the victim. Indeed, Paul slightly but significantly modifies the wording of the verse (changing κεκατηραμένος ὑπὸ θεου to ἐπικατάρατος) to steer the audience away from this misunderstanding.
c) Modern readers miss the point of Paul’s statement because they approach the text with questions about the mechanics of the atonement. I urge that the passage should rather be read as a description of the status loss (“becoming a curse”) Jesus underwent in order to redeem Israel. The passage is thus akin to Phil 2:5–9 and other texts which do not provide a theory of atonement so much as they describe the social texture of Christ’s shameful death.
I argue instead that James 2:1–9 should be understood as a hypothetical scene from an early Jewish-Christian communal meal. This yields the following:
1) Most importantly, it explains why the issue of seating/location is the focal point of the discussion.
2) It explains the social import of the instructions given to the poor man to stand (slaves stood as “waiters” at ancient meals/symposia), or to “sit down as/under my footstool” (perhaps like a dog, waiting for scraps from the table).
3) My reading finds a clear parallel to James 2 in 1 Cor 11:17–34, where Paul addresses much the same issue, namely the role of social status (honor/shame, wealth/poverty) in the communal meal, and employs much the same theological strategy, arguing that such behavior is inconsistent with faithfulness to Jesus (cf. James 2:1).
4) It suggests that James may be invoking the Jesus tradition found in the two parables of Luke 14. Luke 14:7–11 concerns a wedding feast where one’s position at the table is the crucial signifier of honor or shame. Luke 14:12–14 encourages those who host meals to invite not the rich (perhaps to secure patronage), but the poor, who would be unable to repay them. James thus echoes the dominical teaching that God’s kingdom reverses society’s judgments concerning shame and honor. This is in line with James’ frequent use of Jesus-tradition, and further explains why he mentions Jesus’ example at the beginning of his discussion of favoritism (2:1).