Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

Since business people now know how ungodly presumptuous planning is,
they better abstain from it. Not to do so, constitutes sin (Martin, 168). According
to a second commentator, however, this verse adds an additional argument
against presumptuous planning. Big business ultimately knows better
than to boast and to brag, and to plan and to hoard like a rich fool (Lk. 12:13-
21), without reference to God. They know what the “good” is that they ought
to do, namely charitable acts (Jam. 1:21-25; Gal. 6:9; Mt. 6:19-21). They
cannot plead ignorance, definitely not after facing the present admonitions.
It is not that ignorance ever excuses. But sins, which are committed in
ignorance, can be forgiven. Paul pleads ignorance about what he was doing
during the time he was persecuting the Church, although he did not disclaim
responsibility for what constituted a sin of unbelief! “I thank Christ Jesus our
Lord ... he counted me faithful, putting me into the ministry. Even though I
was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious, I was shown mercy,
because I did it ignorantly in unbelief” (1 Tim. 1:12-13). However, sins that
are conscious and intentional are a different story. The author apparently
charges big business in James 4:17 of consciously refusing to do what they
ought to do. He calls that sin (PHDavids, 174)!
Other commentators, however, see a more full-orbed message in James
4:17. The verse applies to big business, all right, but it has wider application
as well. Among these commentators it is generally agreed that its main objective
is to criticize sins of “omission,” even though, according to one
James’ scholar, it seems somewhat “awkwardly” added to the end of this
paragraph (Moo, 1985, 158). One commentator thinks of “a sin of omission”
in a narrower sense. James 4:17, then, is said to be a commentary on Proverbs
3:27-28. In the light of the uncertainty of tomorrow, the good that can and
must be done today, such as paying wages on time, making poverty loans,
etc, should not be put off (Laws, 193-194).
A second commentator thinks of “sins of omission” in a much broader
sense. He believes that all sins of omission come into view. He refers to the
story of the Good Samaritan as an illustration. The priest and the Levite do
the ambushed man no positive wrong. But they still stand condemned as sinners.
It is the Good Samaritan who is applauded as the proper role model. In
other words, ultimately the “good” that is required, is not just negative in nature.
In this context, it is not enough not to disparage the brother, nor sufficient
not to boast about the future and the anticipated gains. No, these warnings
do and should clear the way for positive holiness, both the edification of
the brother, and the proper approach to the future, in terms of both Godcentered
planning and the use of anticipated profits (Mitton, 173; Tasker,
104). To put it mildly, from this perspective James’ words are “an important
725