Praying to Jesus: A Review (Part 4)
Worshiping the Son
Andrew Hallenbeck often takes little excursions into friendly territory only to try to pit the rest of us against familiar ground. He spends most of pages 56-59 showing that Jesus is worthy of worship and honor—something which did not have to be demonstrated to any faithful member of the church. This is at least the second time he has devoted space to proving what no one questions. Finally, he gets to his point: “One must ask why ‘worship’ of the Father included ‘prayer,’ yet when applied to the Son, it is thus excluded?” (59).
Apparently, no one at Apologetics Press told him that if he asked that question, he must also ask this one: “One must ask why ‘worship’ of the Father included ‘prayer,’ yet when applied to the Holy Spirit, it is thus excluded?” Hmm. True, John 5:22-23 mentions honoring the Son just as the Father, but the purpose there was to get the people to see the Deity of Jesus. That fact does not negate applying Hallenbeck’s conclusion to the Holy Spirit as well.
Anyway, there is an easy answer to the question, and it is that Jesus told us to pray to the Father through Him. These passages will be cited later at the appropriate time. Our point is that no one dishonors Jesus by following His instructions.
The drumbeat continues to the end of chapter 2—again with material no one disputes. Yes, Jesus was worshiped before His crucifixion, and, yes, He was worshiped afterward, also (62). The only flaw in Hallenbeck’s ointment is that he insists that if worship includes praying, then we must pray to Jesus (63). Then why do we not equally pray to the Holy Spirit? Is He Deity? Is He worthy? Did He not inspire the words we read and study (and sometimes debate over)? The same argument that proves we must pray to Deity proves we must pray to the Holy Spirit.
Furthermore, if we don’t pray to Jesus, are we sinning? It is eminently fair to ask this question. Remember that Winkler asked if he sinned in praying to Jesus. So, do we sin if we fail to pray to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit? Hallenbeck thinks he proved that we must. Remember, his argument is that Jesus is to be worshiped, and worship includes prayer. Therefore, we must pray to Jesus. Why would it not, therefore, be a sin to refuse to do so? Or maybe the author’s argument is invalid.
While it is true that worship involves prayer, the Father has the authority to reveal the way He wants it done. He did not command us to pray to Jesus or to the Holy Spirit—although if He had, it would be fine with us. We are the Creation; we have no say in the matter, but the Creator explained the manner in which we are to pray. We simply follow His will.
Chapter 3: “Praying and the Psalms”
In this chapter, Hallenbeck once again returns to quoting ancient sources, including some early church hymns listed by Everett Ferguson in his book, Early Christians Speak (from pages 152-54). They do indeed involve singing hymns that are prayers to Jesus (67-68), but they are not dated, and they are not from the New Testament. What the proponents of the Jackson-Hallenbeck doctrine need are hymns in the New Testament that petition Jesus, and they cannot find one. Praise of Jesus? Certainly! What they lack are prayers to Him—either spoken or sung.
Already mentioned on page 56 is Psalm 102, discussed in the previous article. Hallenbeck reprises the argument, this time citing Wayne Jackson and Eric Lyons of Apologetics Press, who wrote: “According to Hebrews 1:8-12 and Psalm 102, the psalmist was actually speaking (i.e., praying to Jesus, ‘the Son’”) (70). No, Brother Lyons should have looked at Hebrews 1:8 more closely. The text says that God is speaking to the Son, and, no, He is not praying to Him.
Most of the space in this chapter is devoted to proving that spoken words can also be sung. That seems obvious, does it not? If we were not singing words, what would be the content of our hymns? Hallenbeck, however, affirms that Paul and Silas were singing their prayers in Acts 16:25 (71-73). He finds some scholarly support for the idea, but even if it is true, what difference does it make? He cannot show that they were praying and singing to Jesus.
Next is a discussion of selah as used in the Psalms (73-74) and shigionoth used by Habakkuk (74-75). If they are musical directions, they still do not prove Hallenbeck’s “praying to Jesus” doctrine. On page 76, the author brings up for the third time now Psalm 102. The reader might ask, “Why does he repeatedly cite Psalm 102 and Acts 7:59?” The reason is that he doesn’t have much else to discuss. Neither passage establishes his thesis concerning praying to Jesus, but it’s about all he has.
In fact, at the conclusion of three chapters, the reader has been treated to the scholarship of men—most of which is only tangential to the thesis—the thoughts of early Christians, which cannot be used as authority for Christian worship today, the proclamation of the truth that God—including the Son and the Holy Spirit—are worthy of worship, Psalm 102, and Acts 7:59—both of which have been shown not to mean what Hallenbeck asserts that they mean. It is somewhat analogous to someone writing a book on building an engine including principles of propulsion, citing valid science principles and then assembling all of the parts to get the engine to run smoothly. It fails to leave the driveway, however, due to the absence of wheels.
Chapter 4: “Scriptural Evidence”
If there are any wheels to get this theory rolling down the street, it ought to be in the next 66 pages where we finally get to the Scriptural arguments. The reader will be delighted to discover that Hallenbeck waited all the way to the second page of this chapter to bring up Acts 7:59 (80). A few cynical souls might wonder, “What took so long?” One of the operating principles in this jalopy is not to ever shift too far away from this passage.
The other initial passages cited trying to prove that prayer to Jesus is acceptable are Matthew 9:38, Acts 1:24, Acts 4:24 & 29, and Acts 8:22 (79-80). His contention is that Lord in all of these verses is Jesus—not the Father. No proof is offered, however. The first of these is Matthew 9:38, where Jesus tells His disciples to “pray the Lord of the harvest to send out laborers into His harvest.” Is Jesus actually encouraging His disciples here to pray to Him? Then why does He refer to Himself in the third person? Lord may refer to Jesus—but not when the evidence suggests otherwise.
While it is true that Lord usually refers to Jesus in Acts and in the New Testament, the term also refers to the Father. Hallenbeck declares, for instance, that Lord refers to Jesus in Acts 4:24 and 29, but it is evident in verse 26 that Lord is the Father—“the Lord and His Christ.” In fact, all three verses refer to the Father here. In Acts 4:24, the brethren “raised their voice to God with one accord and said: ‘Lord, You are God, who made the heaven and the earth and the sea, and all that is in them.’” Now what compels us to think that the prayer is addressed to Jesus? Observe verses 27-30. Words are bolded that involve to whom the prayer is addressed—namely, the Father.
For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose had determined before to be done. Now, Lord, look on their threats, and grant to Your servants that with all boldness they may speak Your word, by stretching out Your Hand to heal, and that signs and wonders may be done through the name of Your holy Servant Jesus.
So, is Jesus addressed in verses 24 and 29 but God the rest of the time? No, the brethren were not flip-flopping. The prayer is addressed to the Father, and Jesus is referred to as His holy servant. Only by not considering these verses in their context can one try to make this passage prayer to Jesus.
It is not unreasonable to think that Acts 1:24 might be addressed to Jesus, but neither is it conclusive to use as proof for Hallenbeck’s overall thesis. More will be said about this instance shortly. Acts 8:22 involves a textual variation. The King James and the New King James have “pray God” while other translations have “pray to the Lord.” Young’s Literal Translation also has “God,” and Jerome’s Vulgate (the Latin translation of the Greek text) uses “Deum”—God. Hallenbeck does not mention the textual variations. Even if Lord were the preferred reading, no evidence suggests beyond a doubt that it would refer to Jesus rather than the Father.
The author apparently thinks he has discovered an important fact; he states: “One will note that the ‘Father’ is never employed in the book of Acts in the context of prayer” (80). However, He is mentioned in Acts 1:4, 7, and 2:33 at the outset of the book. Hallenbeck cites Stephen as proof that it is not necessary to address the Father. He seems more determined to make what Stephen said a model prayer than to listen to what Jesus actually gave as an example (Matt. 6:9ff.).
Hallenbeck wonders why, if it is so imperative to address the Father, the designation is not used in Acts. First, Acts 4 proves that you can address an entire prayer to the Father without using His name; they were still praying to Him. Also, it is well-known that the book of Esther never uses the name of God one time, but His presence is felt throughout. In fact, no book shows His wonderful providence any more clearly. Father may be the less complicated and more specific term, but God and Lord work just as well.
Acts 1:24 (82-83)
Having mentioned this passage previously, Hallenbeck now offers quotes by Wayne Jackson, J. W. McGarvey, Barnes, and F.F. Bruce to “prove” that the Lord addressed in the passage is Jesus. The main argument seems to be that, since Jesus chose the apostles, the brethren appeal to Him to choose the successor for Judas (Acts 1:2; John 6:70-71; Mark 3:13-19; Luke 6:12-16). One might add an additional point. Jesus chose the original twelve, and He chose Paul a little later on; why is it not reasonable that He chose Matthias, also?
Actually, it is reasonable. But is it accurate? In His last conversation with His disciples before being betrayed and crucified, Jesus taught them to address the Father through Him (John 16:23, 26). Are they, contrary to that instruction, appealing to Him directly? If they did, it would still be different than after the Day of Pentecost when the gospel was first preached. It would have been done during an interim period that does not now exist. If they did pray to Him at that time, they soon were doing it correctly by Acts 4 (as already shown).
However, no one can prove that Lord in this instance refers to Jesus instead of the Father. If Jesus was going to make this selection personally, He could have done so at any time during the 40 days before He ascended into Heaven. If they were praying to Jesus, why did they not describe Judas as “the one who betrayed You” (Acts 1:16). Why not use “You” in verse 21 and “Your resurrection” in verse 22? None of these passages in the Book of Acts unmistakably involves disciples praying to Jesus, and certainly in Acts 4 the prayer is unquestionably addressed to the Father.