_THE WISDOM THAT IS FROM BELOW._
"Who is wise and understanding among you? let him show by his good
life his works in meekness of wisdom. But if ye have bitter jealousy
and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not against the truth.
This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is
earthly, sensual, devilish. For where jealousy and faction are, there
is confusion and every vile deed."--ST. JAMES iii. 13-16.
This section, which again looks at first sight like an abrupt
transition to another subject, is found, upon closer examination, to
grow quite naturally out of the preceding one. St. James has just been
warning his readers against the lust of teaching and talking. Not many
of them are to become teachers, for the danger of transgressing with
the tongue, which is great in all of us, is in them at a maximum,
because teachers must talk. Moreover, those who teach have greater
responsibilities than those who do not; for by professing to instruct
others they deprive themselves of the plea of ignorance, and they are
bound to instruct by example of good deeds, as well as by precept of
good words. From this subject he quite naturally passes on to speak of
the difference between the wisdom from above and the wisdom from
below; and the connexion is twofold. It is those who possess only the
latter wisdom, and are proud of their miserable possession, who are so
eager to make themselves of importance by giving instruction; and it
is the fatal love of talk, about which he has just been speaking so
severely, that is one of the chief symptoms of the wisdom that is from
below.
This paragraph is, in fact, simply a continuation of the
uncompromising _attack upon sham religion_ which is the main theme
throughout a large portion of the Epistle. St. James first shows how
useless it is to be an eager hearer of the word, without also being a
doer of it. Next he exposes the inconsistency of loving one's
neighbour as oneself if he chances to be rich, and neglecting or even
insulting him if he is poor. From that he passes on to prove the
barrenness of an orthodoxy which is not manifested in good deeds, and
the peril of trying to make words a substitute for works. And thus the
present section is reached. Throughout the different sections it is
the empty religiousness which endeavours to avoid the _practice_ of
Christian virtue, on the plea of possessing zeal, or faith, or
knowledge, that is mercilessly exposed and condemned. "Deed, deeds,
deeds," is the cry of St. James; "these ought ye to have done, and not
to have left the other undone." Without Christian practice, all the
other good things which they possessed or professed were savourless
salt.
"Who is wise and understanding among you?" (τίς σοφὸς καὶ ἐπιστήμων ἐν
ὑμῖν). The same two words meet us in the questionings of Job
(xxviii. 12): "Where shall wisdom (σοφία) be found? and where is the
place of understanding (ἐπιστήμη)?"[69] Of all the words which signify
some kind of intellectual endowment, _e.g._ "prudence" (φρόνησις),
"knowledge" (γνῶσις or ἐπίγνωσις), and "understanding" (ἐπιστήμη or
σύνεσισ), "wisdom" (σοφία) always ranks as highest. It indicates, as
Clement of Alexandria defines it (_Strom._ I. v.), "the understanding
of things human and Divine, and their causes." It is the word which
expresses the typical wisdom of Solomon (Matt. xii. 42; Luke xi. 31),
the inspiration of St. Stephen (Acts vi. 10), and the Divine wisdom of
Jesus Christ (Matt. xiii. 54; Mark vi. 2; and comp. Luke xi. 49 with
Matt. xxiii. 34). It is also employed in the heavenly doxologies which
ascribe wisdom to the Lamb and to God (Rev. v. 12; vii. 12).
St. James, therefore, quite naturally employs it to denote that
excellent gift for which Christians are to pray with full confidence
that it will be granted to them (i. 5, 6), and which manifests its
heavenly character by a variety of good fruits (iii. 17).
Whether we are to understand any very marked difference between the
two adjectives ("wise" and "understanding") used in the opening
question, is a matter of little moment. The question taken as a whole
amounts to this: Who among you professes to have superior knowledge,
spiritual or practical? The main thing is not the precise scope of the
question, but of the answer. Let every one who claims to have a
superiority which entitles him to teach others _prove_ his superiority
by his good _life_. Once more it is a call for deeds, and not
words--for conduct, and not professions. And St. James expresses this
in a specially strong way. He might have said simply, "Let him by his
conduct show his wisdom," just as he said above, "I by my works will
show thee my faith." But he says, "Let him show by his good life his
works in meekness of wisdom." Thus the necessity for _practice_ and
_conduct_, as distinct from mere knowledge, is enforced twice over;
and besides that, the particular character of the conduct, the
atmosphere in which it is to be exhibited, is also indicated. It is to
be done "in _meekness_ of wisdom." There are two characteristics here
specified which we shall find are given as the infallible signs of the
heavenly wisdom; and their opposites as signs of the other. The
heavenly wisdom is fruitful of good deeds, and inspires those who
possess it with gentleness. The other wisdom is productive of nothing
really valuable, and inspires those who possess it with
contentiousness. The spirit of strife, and the spirit of meekness;
those are the two properties which chiefly distinguish the wisdom that
comes from heaven from the wisdom that comes from hell.
This test is a very practical one, and we can apply it to ourselves as
well as to others. How do we bear ourselves in argument and in
controversy? Are we serene about the result, in full confidence that
truth and right should prevail? Are we desirous that truth should
prevail, even if that should involve _our_ being proved to be in the
wrong? Are we meek and gentle towards those who differ from us? or are
we apt to lose our tempers, and become heated against our opponents?
If the last is the case we have reason to doubt whether our wisdom is
of the best sort. He who loses his temper in argument has begun to
care more about himself, and less about the truth. He has become like
the many would-be teachers rebuked by St. James; slow to hear, and
swift to speak; unwilling to learn, and eager to dogmatize; much less
ready to know the truth than to be able to say something, whether true
or false.
The words "by his good life" (ἐκ τῆς καλῆς ἀναστροφῆς) are a change
made by the Revisers for other reasons than the two which commonly
weighed with them. As already stated (p. 150), their most valuable
corrections are those which have been produced by the correction of
the corrupt Greek text used by previous translators. Many more are
corrections of mistranslations of the correct Greek text. The present
change of "good _conversation_" into "good _life_" comes under neither
of these two heads. It has been necessitated by a change which has
taken place in the English language during the last two or three
centuries. Words are constantly changing their meaning. "Conversation"
is one of many English words which have drifted from their old
signification; and it is one of several which have undergone change
since the Authorized Version was published, and in spite of the
enormous influence exercised by that version. For there can be no
doubt that our Bible has retained words in use which would otherwise
have been dropped, and has kept words to their old meaning which would
otherwise have undergone a change. This latter influence, however,
fails to make itself felt where the changed meaning still makes sense;
and that is the case with the passages in which "conversation" (as a
rendering of ἀναστροφή) occurs in the New Testament. "Conversation"
was formerly a word of much wider meaning, and its gradual restriction
to intercourse by word of mouth is unfortunate. Formerly it covered
the whole of a man's _walk_ in life (_Lebenswandel_), his going out
and coming in, his behaviour or conduct. Wherever he "turned himself
about" and lived, there he had his "conversation" (_conversatio_, from
_conversari_, the exact equivalent of ἀναστροφή, from ἀναστρέφεσθαι).
It was exactly the word that was required by the translators of the
Greek Testament. In the Septuagint it does not occur until the
Apocrypha (Tobit iv. 14). But it causes serious misunderstanding to
restrict the meaning of all the passages in which the word occurs to
"conversation" in the modern sense, as if speaking were the only thing
included; and the Revisers have done very rightly in removing this
source of misunderstanding; but they have been unable to find any one
expression which would serve the purpose, and hence have been
compelled to vary the translation. Sometimes they give "manner of
life" (Gal. i. 13; Eph. iv. 22; 1 Tim. iv. 12; 1 Peter i. 18;
iii. 16); once "manner of living" (1 Peter i. 15); three times
"behaviour" (1 Peter ii. 12; iii. 1, 2); three times "life" (Heb.
xiii. 7; 2 Peter ii. 7; and here); and once "living" (2 Peter
iii. 11). These different translations are worth collecting together,
inasmuch as they give a good idea of the scope of "conversation" in
the old sense,[70] which really represents the word used by St. James.
That "conversation," with the modern associations which inevitably
cling to it now, should be used in the passage before us, is
singularly unfortunate. It not only misrepresents, but it almost
reverses the meaning of the writer. So far from telling a man to show
his wisdom by what he _says_ in his intercourse with others, St. James
rather exhorts him to show it by saying as little as possible, and
doing a great deal. Let him show out of a noble life the conduct of a
wise man in the gentle spirit which befits such. In modern language,
let him in the fullest sense be a Christian gentleman.
"In _meekness_ of wisdom." On this St. James lays great stress. He has
already told his readers to "receive with meekness the implanted word"
(i. 21), and what implies the same thing, although the word is not
used, to "be swift to hear, slow to speak, slow to wrath" (i. 19). And
in the passage before us he insists with urgent repetition upon the
peaceable and gentle disposition of those who possess the wisdom from
above (vv. 17, 18). The Christian grace of meekness is a good deal
more than the rather second-rate virtue which Aristotle makes to be
the mean between passionateness and impassionateness, and to consist
in a due regulation of one's angry feelings (_Eth. Nic._ IV. v.). It
includes submissiveness towards God, as well as gentleness towards
men; and it exhibits itself in a special way in giving and receiving
instruction, and in administering and accepting rebuke. It was,
therefore, just the grace which the many would-be teachers, with their
loud professions of correct faith and superior knowledge, specially
needed to acquire. The Jew, with his national contempt for all who
were not of the stock of Israel, was always prone to self-assertion,
and these Christian Jews of the Dispersion had still to learn the
spirit of their own psalms. "The meek will He guide in judgment; and
the meek will He teach His way" (xxv. 9). "The meek shall inherit the
land, and shall delight themselves in the abundance of peace"
(xxxvii. 11). "The Lord upholdeth the meek" (cxlvii. 6). "He shall
beautify the meek with salvation" (cxlix. 4). In all these passages
the Septuagint has the adjective (πραεῖς) of the substantive used by
St. James (πραΰτης). "But if," instead of this meekness, "ye have
bitter jealousy and faction in your heart, glory not, and lie not
against the truth." With a gentle severity St. James states as a mere
supposition what he probably knew to be a fact. There was plenty of
bitter zealousness and party spirit among them; and from this fact
they could draw their own conclusions. It was an evil from which the
Jews greatly suffered; and a few years later it hastened, if it did
not cause, the overthrow of Jerusalem. This "jealousy" or zeal
(ζῆλος) itself became a party name in the fanatical sect of the
Zealots. It was an evil from which the primitive Church greatly
suffered, as passages in the New Testament and in the sub-Apostolic
writers prove; and can we say that it has ever become extinct? The
same conclusion must be drawn now as then.
Jealousy or zeal may be a good or a bad thing according to the motive
which inspires it. God Himself is called "a jealous God," and is said
to be "clad with zeal as a cloak" (Isa. lix. 17), and to "take to Him
jealousy for complete armour" (Wisdom v. 17). To Christ His disciples
applied the words, "The zeal of Thine house shall eat me up" (John
ii. 17). But more often the word has a bad signification. It indicates
"zeal not according to knowledge" (Rom. x. 2), as when the high priest
and Sadducees arrested the Apostles (Acts v. 17), or when Saul
persecuted the Church (Phil. iii. 6). It is coupled with strife (Rom.
xiii. 13), and is counted among the works of the flesh (Gal. v. 20).
To make it quite plain that it is to be understood in a bad sense
here, St. James adds the epithet "bitter" to it, and perhaps thereby
recalls what he has just said about a mouth that utters both curses
and blessings being as monstrous as a fountain spouting forth both
bitter water and sweet. Moreover, he couples it with "faction"
(ἐριθεία), a word which originally meant "working for hire," and
especially "weaving for hire" (Isa. xxxviii. 12), and thence any
ignoble pursuit, especially political canvassing, intrigue, or
factiousness (Arist. _Pol._ V. ii. 6; iii. 9; Rom. ii. 8; Phil. i. 16;
ii. 3). This also St. Paul classes among the works of the flesh (Gal.
v. 20). What St. James seems to refer to in these two words is bitter
religious animosity; a hatred of error (or what is supposed to be
such), manifesting itself, not in loving attempts to win over those
who are at fault, but in bitter thoughts, and words, and party
combinations.
"Glory not, and lie not against the truth." To glory with their
tongues of their superior wisdom, while they cherished jealousy and
faction in their hearts, was a manifest lie, a contradiction of what
they must know to be the truth. In their fanatical zeal for the truth
they were really lying against the truth, and ruining the cause which
they professed to serve. Of how many a controversialist would that be
true; and not only of those who have entered the lists against heresy
and infidelity, but of those who are preaching a crusade against vice!
"The whole Christianity of many a devotee consists only, we may say,
in a bitter contempt for the sins of sinners, in a proud and loveless
contention with what it calls the wicked world" (Stier).
"This wisdom is not a wisdom that cometh down from above, but is
earthly, sensual, devilish." The wisdom which is exhibited in such a
thoroughly unchristian disposition is of no heavenly origin. It may be
a proof of intellectual advantages of some kind, but it is not such as
those who lack it need pray for (i. 5), nor such as God bestows
liberally on all who ask in faith. And then, having stated what it is
not, St. James tells in three words, which form a climax, what the
wisdom on which they plume themselves, in its nature, and sphere, and
origin, really is. _It belongs to this world_, and has no connexion
with heavenly things. _Its activity is in the lower part of man's
nature_, his passions and his human intelligence, but it never touches
his spirit. And in its origin and manner of working _it is
demoniacal_. Not the gentleness of God's Holy Spirit, but the fierce
recklessness of Satan's emissaries, inspires it. Just as there is a
faith which a man may share with demons (ii. 19), and a tongue which
is set on fire by hell (iii. 6), so there is a wisdom which is
demoniacal in its source and in its activity.
The second of the three terms of condemnation used by St. James
(ψυχικός) cannot be adequately rendered in English, for "psychic"
or "psychical" would convey either no meaning or a wrong one. It does
not occur in the Septuagint, but is found six times in the New
Testament--four times in the First Epistle to the Corinthians (ii. 14;
xv. 44, 46), where most English versions have "natural;" once in Jude
(19), where Tyndale, Cranmer, and the Genevan have "fleshly," the
Rhemish, the Authorized, and the Revised "sensual;" and once here,
where Genevan, Rhemish, Authorized, and Revised all give "sensual,"
the last placing "natural or animal" in the margin.[71] When man's
nature is divided into body and soul, or flesh and spirit, every one
understands that the body or flesh indicates the lower and material
part, the soul or spirit the higher and immaterial part. But when a
threefold division is made, into body, soul, and spirit, we are apt to
allow the more simple and more familiar division to disturb our ideas.
"Soul" is allowed to keep its old meaning, and to be understood as
much more allied with "spirit" than with "body" or "flesh." This
causes serious misunderstanding. When the soul is distinguished, not
only from the flesh, but from the spirit, it represents a part of our
nature which is much more closely connected with the former than with
the latter. The "natural" or "sensual" man, though higher than the
carnal man, who is the slave of his animal passions, is far below the
spiritual man, who is ruled by the highest portion of his nature,
which is under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. The natural man does
not soar above the things of this world. His inspirations are not
heavenly. "Of the earth he is, and of the earth he speaketh." The
wisdom from above is heavenly, spiritual, Divine; the wisdom from
below is earthly, sensual, devilish.
Does this seem to be an exaggeration? St. James is ready to justify
his strong language. "For where jealousy and faction are, there is
confusion and every vile deed." And who are the authors of confusion
and vile deeds? Are they to be found in heaven, or in hell? Is
confusion, or order, the mark of God's work? If one wished to sum up
succinctly the manner in which the activity of demons specially
exhibits itself, could one do so better than by saying "confusion and
every vile deed"? "God is not a God of confusion, but of peace," says
St. Paul, using the very word that we have here (1 Cor. xiv. 33); and
every one heartily assents to the doctrine. The reason and conscience
of every man tell him that disorder cannot in origin be Divine; it is
part of that ruin which Satanic influences have been allowed to make
in a universe which was created "very good." Jealousy and faction mean
anarchy; and anarchy means a moral chaos in which every vile deed
finds an opportunity. We know, therefore, what to think of the
superior wisdom which is claimed by those in whose hearts jealousy and
faction reign supreme. It may have a right to the name of wisdom, just
as a correct belief about the nature of God may have a right to the
name of faith, even when it remains barren, and therefore powerless to
save. But an inspiration which prompts men to envy and intrigue,
because, when many are rushing to occupy the post of teacher, others
find a hearing more readily than themselves, is the inspiration of
Cain and of Korah, rather than of Moses or of Daniel. The professed
desire to offer service to God is really only a craving to obtain
advancement for self. Self-seeking of this kind is always ruinous. It
both betrays and aggravates the rottenness that lurks within. It was
immediately after there had been a contention among the Apostles,
"which of them was accounted to be greatest" (Luke xxii. 24), that
they "all forsook Him and fled."
NOTE.--A portion of Dr. Newman's description of a gentleman will serve
to illustrate what has been said above. It occurs in his _Discourses
addressed to the Catholics of Dublin_. "It is almost a definition of a
gentleman to say that he is one who _never inflicts pain_. He is
mainly occupied in merely removing the obstacles which hinder the free
and unembarrassed action of those about him, and he concurs with their
movements rather than takes the initiative himself. He carefully
avoids whatever may cause a jar or a jolt in the minds of those with
whom he is cast--all clashing of opinion, or collision of feeling, all
restraint, or suspicion, or gloom, or resentment; his great concern
being to make every one at their ease and at home. He has his eyes on
all his company; he is tender towards the bashful, gentle towards the
distant, and merciful towards the absurd. He guards against
unseasonable allusions, or topics which may irritate. He has no ears
for slander or gossip, is scrupulous in imputing motives to those who
interfere with him, and interprets everything for the best."
[69] Comp. also Deut. i. 13, and iv. 6, where we have the same
combination.
[70] That "conversation" should also have been used as a rendering of
πολίτευμα (Phil. iii. 20; comp. i. 27) and τρόπος (Heb. xiii. 5) is
very unfortunate.
[71] Purvey has "beastly" in all six places, which is a translation of
the _animalis_ of the Vulgate: "earthly, beastly, fiendly" is his
triplet. See p. 453.