Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

But it still needs to be explained why anyone who combines envy with
selfish ambition, will turn out to be arrogant and a liar against the truth.
James’ directive seems to imply that they should stop bragging in a spirit of
self-assertiveness (Johnson, 273), and so stop lying against the truth (Keddie,
121). Apparently arrogance is the flipside of envy and selfish ambition. “Success”
on the part of this ungodly duo only ascerbates the situation since it
tends both to foster and legitimize pride. In this context, then, James simply
states that there is nothing to be proud about. After all, the truth, inclusive of
the wisdom and the understanding that James wishes each teacher to possess,
shows envy and selfish ambition in their true colors, that is, as unacceptable.
In fact, especially when they masquerade under the guise of zeal and “drive,”
envy and selfish ambition constitute the “big lie.” James seems to “scream” it
out and hammer it home. They are in utter contradiction to the word of truth
that was (to be) implanted in the readers, because this can only be received
“in truth,” namely the truth of meekness (Johnson, 273). Some lie by skirting
or sideswiping the truth. Others are abusive of the truth by their “lying” arrogance,
at times under the mask of virtue. James’ condemnation aims at the
latter (Manton, 305; see also Laws, 160).
However, some commentators explain the precise textual wording “arrogant
about it” differently. They interpret the word “it” proleptically. They
hold that the arrogance James exposes is the type that extols the worldly type
of wisdom that he proceeds to condemn in all its perniciousness in the next
verse. All those who brag about such “wisdom,” then, lie against the truth that
consists (only) of the wisdom that comes from above, “which is the polar opposite
of the counterfeit ‘truth’ they disseminate” (Nystrom, 207; Ropes,
246). In other words, they lie against the truth not as much in the motivation
(bitter envy and selfish ambition) behind their destructive conduct, as in their
disregard of the only source (“above”) of constructive conduct.
It seems to me that the first explanation fits James’ language and the
context better. But whatever explanation is chosen, the need for repentance,
openly expressed in James 4:6ff, already begins to make itself felt, especially
because truth in this context is clearly a moral and spiritual, rather than an
intellectual concept (Mitton, 137). To deviate from the truth, or trounce it,
clearly turns repentance into a necessity. Incidentally, Paul combines selfish
ambition with disobedience to the truth as well (Rom. 2:8), although in James
selfish ambition constitutes “untruth” (motivation) and in Paul it leads to
“untruth” (disobedience)!
625