Henry Krabbendam - James - World Evangelical Alliance

eminder” that “the sins of omission are at least as sinful as the sins of commission”
(Moo, 1985, 158, with reference to Lk. 12:47; 19:11-27; Mt. 25:31-
46). Frankly only a few folks seem to follow in the admirable footsteps of
Samuel who in an obvious prayer situation did not fall down on the job (1
Sam. 12:23).
I am inclined to agree that the verse under consideration targets sins of
omission in the broadest possible sense. However, the text presents us with an
additional dimension. The sins of omission in this context are not sins of ignorance.
These already are highly culpable, whether intentional (2 Pet. 3:5) or
unintentional (1 Tim. 1:13). James speaks here about sins of omission aggravated
by conscious awareness, and possibly by sins of commission (Manton,
398). One commentator perceptively states that this should make us tremble
and gives us a glimpse as to why this is the case. In specifically applying the
“omission principle” to traveling traders, he observes that they know by observation,
experience as well as reflection that their monies can be put to
Kingdom use (1 Tim. 6:17-19). In fact, they do not need to go into the slums
to conclude how they should practice the continuing philanthropy that is incumbent
upon them. So why don’t they do this? (Zodhiates, III, 32-33).
This is a fully acceptable application. But if verse 17 is a universal principle,
as most commentators hold, the implications do not leave any aspect or
phase of life untouched. They affect life across the board. If this is so, many
settings and instances in the covenant community may well experience the
devastating force of these implications, especially in light of the fact that life
is vapor-short. The Church must confess that it too often knowingly and sinfully
underperforms in too short a life!
In a word, the standard of conduct is not, “What is hateful to yourself, do
not to another.” But, “what you (consciously and knowingly) wish that men
do to you, do so to them” (Mitton, 174; see also Luke 17:10). This finds its
parallel in the proper exposition of the Ten Commandments. The negative
prohibitions by definition imply positive injunctions (and vice versa, of
course).
This interpretation, precisely because it provides remarkable breadth,
length and depth to James’ message, appears to fit best in his Epistle. This is
to say that the content of James 4:17 is, indeed, applicable to the two categories
of people, together with their sins, that are mentioned in James 4:11-16.
But its scope is much wider. It covers all other categories of people, together
with their sins, in all phases and areas of their lives as well. Its scope proves
to be universal. As already mentioned above, this was fully understood by the
godly Bishop Usher. On his deathbed, just before he entered into glory, he
was overheard as saying, “Oh, my sins of omission; oh, my sins of omission.”
726