|
|
|
|
"...GOD HEARETH NOT SINNERS"
JOHN 9:31
The blind man who had been healed by Jesus said, "Now we know that God heareth not sinners: but if any man
be a worshipper of God, and doeth his will, him he heareth," (John 9:31). His statement has been used at times
as a blanket-coverage refutation of the erroneous teaching that a lost person must pray the "sinners' prayer"
in order to be saved. The "sinners' prayer" goes something like this: "Oh God, I know I am a sinner.
Dear Lord please forgive me of my sins. I believe Jesus died for me on the Cross. I believe His shed blood, death,
burial, and resurrection were for me. I now receive Him as my Savior. I thank you for the forgiveness of my sins,
the gift of salvation and everlasting life, because of Your merciful grace. Amen." The blind man's answer
to the Pharisees seems, on the surface, to fit as an argument against the "sinners' prayer" concept.
However, that application does not consider the verse in its context.
One of the simplest rules of hermeneutics is that scripture must be understood in its context. Once, a lecherous
co-worker justified his licentious living by scripture when he said to me, "Don't you know that the Bible
says, 'Eat, drink and be merry'"? Yes, I know that it says that in Luke 12:19, but the statement is made by
the farmer in Jesus' parable against covetousness and the enriched farmer is called a "fool" in the same
context. "Eat, drink and be merry," is not designed to be a deducted truth applicable to proper behavior
in man's life. This co-worker lifted the statement out of context to justify himself. Though the statement was
accurately quoted in its portion, it was a mishandling of scripture. He used it to justify his sin and he did not
have the right to apply it in that fashion. In the same way, in our concern for the refutation of false doctrine,
we may accurately quote a scripture but lift it out of context. Even with such a noble intent, there is no justification
for misusing scripture. We are a people dedicated to truth which means that we must "handle aright the word
of truth," (2 Timothy 2:15, ASV). Not all things which are easy answers to error use scripture in a proper
fashion. And, if one is willing to misuse scripture to refute error, he will also misuse it to justify himself
-- such action really shows a disrespect for its Author.
PRELIMINARY OBSERVATIONS
Before we examine the text, there are some truths which need to be set forth. The person dead in his trespasses
and sins is never told by God to pray for forgiveness. Furthermore, the "sinners' prayer" is an invention
of man and has its origin in denominational doctrine. It misunderstands and misapplies grace and the simple God-given
conditions for salvation . It cannot be found in scripture. When a lost person who has never been born again (John
3:1-7) prays in order to get the forgiveness of his sins, God does not answer his prayer with forgiveness. Such
lost people are told to believe, repent, confess and be baptized (Mark 16:16; Acts 2:38; 22:16; Romans 10:10).
They are never told to pray for forgiveness nor does God say that He will forgive them when they pray.
But, does God answer the prayer of an earnest, sincere, seeking lost soul? Yes. I believe He does in that He makes
sure that such a person comes into contact with His saving power, the gospel (Romans 1:16; 2 Thessalonians 2:14).
Examples of such happenings are seen in the case of the Ethiopian treasurer (Acts 8:26-40) and Cornelius (Acts
10:1-45). Yes, I realize that there was a direct speaking to the messengers who were sent to these people but I
also believe these cases illustrate God's providence by which the seeking soul can have access to God's word.
God's assurance is that His children have access to His throne of grace. His children are taught to pray with the
confidence that their Heavenly Father hears and answers. It is to His children that such a privilege is granted.
Only those who are His children have the right to address Him as "Father." "For the eyes of the
Lord are over the righteous, and his ears are open unto their prayers: but the face of the Lord is against them
that do evil" (1 Peter 3:12). The right of addressing God as "Father" and asking God for forgiveness
is a spiritual blessing belonging to those in Christ Jesus (Ephesians 1:3).
JOHN 9:1-34 -- THE TEXT IN ITS CONTEXT
We first become acquainted with the blind man in verses 1-7. No name is given him -- nothing is known about his
family background. He was a beggar and was, perhaps, sitting by the wayside begging for money as Jesus and the
apostles passed along the way. He had been blind from birth. The healing procedure is similar to others where something
visible is done which is associated with the needs of the handicapped person. Jesus anointed his eyes with the
ointment of clay made from spittal and ground, after which He told the man to go wash in the pool of Saloam. He
went, washed and returned seeing.
Next, in the sequence of events, his neighbors were puzzled about how this man could see (verses 8-12). Some said
that it was the same man who had begged but others said it was a different man. The questioning was settled when
the man answered that it was he whom they had known. They were curious about how his eyes were opened and he answered
in a simple, straightforward fashion, relating the events and commands exactly as they had occurred just a short
time before. This increased their interest about the one who had healed him.
The neighbors brought the blind man to the Pharisees (verses 13-17). Why? Probably because the healing had been
done on the sabbath day. It is possible that they had associated this healing on the sabbath with the previous
one recorded in John 5:1-16, which had caused no small stir among the Jews in Jerusalem. On that occasion the Jews
had charged Jesus with breaking the sabbath and making himself equal with God. They had sought to kill him (John
5:16). As chapter 7 begins, John observes that Jesus walked in Galilee and not in Judaea, because the Jews sought
to kill him. As recorded in John 7:1-53, that controversy intensified when Jesus went back to Jerusalem . In Jerusalem,
as Jesus continued to teach and do miracles, many were beginning to be impressed with him. This caused the Pharisees
and chief priests to send officers to capture him that they might kill him. Later, when the officers had not captured
Jesus, they were asked why they had not fulfilled their charge. They said, "Never man spake like this man."
Now, as this rift continued and the division among the people became more manifest in chapter 9, some of the Pharisees
said, "This man is not of God, because he keepth not the sabbath day" (v. 16a). But others said, "How
can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" (v. 16b). Notice the association made between the miracles done
by Jesus and the charge that he was a "SINNER." What is the significance of the word "sinner"?
It is not that Jesus was charged with being an "alien sinner" who was lost in sin, because he had never
become a child of God. Jesus, as a man, was a Jew. He was born a Hebrew from the lineage of Abraham and had every
right and privilege that all Israelites had under the Mosaic covenant. The charge that he was a "sinner"
is that he, as a Jew, had deliberately violated God's laws and even persisted in justifying his actions.
Remember, from what we have read thus far, that the neighbors who had known the blind man and had questioned him,
did so because some of them did not believe that he was the same man who had been born blind. He had answered them
that he was the man who had been born blind but now was able to see. After he was brought to the Pharisees by the
neighbors, he was interrogated by them with great skepticism.
Now, the text turns our attention to the questioning of the parents by the Pharisees (verses 18-23). The Pharisees
would have liked to believe that this man had not been born blind. Thus far, they have refused to believe the testimony
of both the neighbors and the man who had been blind. In fact, they would not believe that this man had been blind
until his parents admitted that this was their son. The parents could not deny what are obvious facts -- this was
their son -- he was born blind -- he now could see. Even if they wanted to deny their son, too many years had passed
and he had been seen by too many people. The parents did not, however, wish to become affiliated with Jesus in
any way, because they were afraid of the Pharisees and the possibility of their being cast out of the synagogue.
The events of the day unfold further as the Pharisees question the blind man a second time (vv. 24-34). There are
some things which they cannot deny: (1) the man was born blind; (2) he is the son of parents who verify that this
was their son who could not see but now can see; and (3) the blind man adamantly affirms that Jesus was the one
who had given him his sight. Other than accepting the truth about Jesus, the only choice left them as they tried
to circumvent the fact that Jesus had power to do such miracles, was to charge Him with being a sinner. This was
the second time in the context that the word "sinner" was used. They called upon the blind man to give
God the glory, because "We know," they said, "that this man is a sinner"? (v. 24b). A "SINNER"?
What did they mean by "a sinner"? Was Jesus being charged with never having been a child of God; someone
who was deemed in our vernacular as an "alien sinner"? No. Look again at the broader context from John
5:1. The Pharisees' conclusion that Jesus was a "sinner" was based upon their affirmation that he had
openly defied God's law in violating the sabbath. In the whole context of these events the charge was that Jesus
was an evil man, acting out evil purposes to deceive the people.
They again charged Jesus with breaking the sabbath; hence, being a sinner. The mind set of the Pharisees stemmed
from their traditional interpretation of the law (v. 16). They adamantly affirmed an erroneous conclusion which
the law did not teach. In their minds one who violated their tradition defied God's will and was, therefore, a
"sinner" (v. 24). Get the drift of the charge! Now compare the blind man's defense to the charge -- "We
know that God heareth not sinners." Both the blind man and the Pharisees recognized the truth that a man who
is a sinner is not in fellowship or communication with God. But, was his defense that Jesus prayed and God heard
His prayer? No. Though the blind man was not inspired, his was a logical conclusion based on his awareness of truth
and what Jesus had DONE. His defense was based on what even THEY acknowledged to be so. Remember the association
made by some of the Pharisees earlier (v. 16)? Some said "this man is not of God, because he keepth not the
sabbath day. Others said, "How can a man that is a sinner do such miracles?" The connection here is not
between "prayer" and the miracle but miracles and God. Nothing was said by Jesus as a prayer to God in
this context! But the blind man is affirming an intimate relationship between God and Jesus -- a relationship that
empowered Jesus to perform a miracle that had never been done before on earth.
While they charged Jesus with violating the sabbath and being a sinner, the blind man knew that Jesus had healed
him and he associated that miracle with the only power that could have performed such a miracle -- "Since
the world began was it not heard that any man opened the eyes of one that was born blind," (v. 32). His conclusion
is firm, precise and logically necessary -- "If this man were not of God, he could do nothing," (v. 33).
In the whole series of events written by John, nothing is said or implied about "praying" or an "alien
sinner." While this uninspired man made an an accurate assessment of the truth, there must be a correlation
between his affirmation that "God heareth not sinners" and the charge made against Jesus that he was
"a sinner." When he said that we know that "God heareth not sinners," he was not talking about
prayer and he was not talking about an "alien sinner." What is meant by "heareth" is an association
between the power of the miracle and Jesus' association with God.
"GOD HEARETH NOT SINNERS" AS A BLANKET STATEMENT
Ah, but someone says, "That's what it says and that's what it means" -- "God heareth not sinners."
Ok, fine, let's apply that as a blanket statement without any consideration for the context and meaning in John
9:1-34. In Acts 8:22, Simon the sorcerer had believed the preaching of Phillip and had been baptized. Not long
after that he committed "simony" -- our English word derived from his very action which describes anyone
who tries to buy a gift of God. That sin was so grievous that Peter said, "thou are in the gall of bitterness
and the bond of iniquity," (v. 23). Peter had just told him to "repent therefore of this thy wickedness,
and pray God, if perhaps the thought of thine heart may be forgiven thee," (v. 22). But this man is a "sinner"
and "we know that God heareth not sinners." Therefore, Peter tells Simon to do something he cannot do
and does not have the right to do, because God will not hear him. Perhaps Peter was unaware of what the blind man
had said in John 9:31? Christians sin. Christians can be overtaken in sin (Galatians 6:1). Christians can depart
from the faith (Hebrews 2:1-4; 6:4-8; 10:26-31). Christians go back into the world (2 Peter 2:20-22). What are
they told to do in order to come back to God? -- repent, confess and PRAY -- (1 John 1:8-10; James 5:16; Acts 8:22.)
"But no, we are talking about alien sinners," someone says. What is there in the context of John 9:31,
that would cause one to conclude that the blind man was talking about an "alien sinner," a "non
Christian?" One must be cautious in applying the blind man's statement to prayer, even by principle.
HOW DOES CORNELIUS FIT INTO "GOD HEARETH NOT SINNERS"?
What kind of a man was Cornelius? He was "A devout man, and one that feared God with all his house, which
gave much alms to the people, and prayed to God alway" (Acts 10:2). He was a Gentile but a worshipper of God,
not a worshipper of idols. Some have suggested that he was a proselyte. If so, he would have been one known as
a "proselyte of the gate," for the simple reason that he is still known as a Gentile, because Peter was
charged later with, "Thou wentest in to men uncircumcised and did eat with them" (Acts 11:3). Cornelius
would stand on par with the Jews of the first century who trusted in God and lived as best they could under their
respective law systems but neither Cornelius nor the Jews were accounted as righteous on the basis of keeping law
perfectly. The Jews, though in the proper Abrahamic lineage and heirs of the promise to Abraham, were still lost
without faith in Christ and baptism into Christ (Mark 16:16; Romans 1:16; 10:1-2). All Jews needed the gospel to
be saved and the preaching of the gospel had been to them until the events in Acts 10. All Gentiles needed the
gospel as well. And, though Cornelius was devout and God fearing, he was lost in his sin. He understood that the
intent of Peter's coming would be to tell him "words by which thou and all thy house shall be saved"
(Acts 11:14). My conclusion is that if Cornelius had died before the coming of Christ that he would have been saved
in the same way that devout Jews would have been saved -- in the anticipation of the sacrifice of Jesus and its
forgiving power.
Cornelius prayed -- not occasionally but "always" (Acts 10:2). Did he have the right to pray to God?
Yes, just as much as the devout Jew had the right to pray to God. What is more, God heard his prayers. Not only
is it said that "Thy prayers and thine alms are come up for a memorial before God," (Acts 10:4), but
it is also said, "Cornelius, thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God,"
(v. 31). What did he pray for? The text doesn't say. But in the sending of Peter to his house with words for his
salvation, it would be fair to assume that Cornelius was praying for forgiveness and a right relationship with
God. Did God say, "Cornelius, your prayer is heard and you are forgiven of your sins?" No. He needed
to hear the gospel message and be baptized in order to be washed of his sins by the blood of Christ (11:14; 10:47-48;
compare 22:16). God's answer to the prayers of Cornelius was to get the gospel to Cornelius. I believe He answers
the prayers of the honest, seeking heart in our time in the same way. He gets the message of the gospel to the
lost sinner.
CONCLUSIONS
We are never justified in misusing scripture to refute error. We need to understand scripture in context and assume
nothing. God nowhere teaches those lost in sin, without Christ, to pray for the forgiveness of sins. Such people
are instructed by the gospel to believe, repent and be baptized -- there is no other gospel that saves (Romans
1: 16; Galatians 1:6-8).
|
