Praying to Jesus: A Review (Part 6)

The first twenty pages of Andrew Hallenbeck u2019s interminably long fourth chapter of his book that enjoins brethren to pray to Jesus presents the Scriptural evidence that supports (he thinks) his thesis; apparently his jalopy ran out of gas (not to mention the missing wheels) at this point; so he shifts gears and goes on the attack against the Scriptures that disagree with his viewpoint. The first of these concerns what Jesus told His disciples in John 16:23-24.

u201cAnd in that day you will ask Me nothing. Most assuredly, I say to you, whatever you ask the Father in My name He will give you. Until now you have asked nothing in My name. Ask, and you will receive, that your joy may be full. u201d

These are part of the instructions that Jesus gave the eleven as they left the Passover meal on their way to the Garden of Gethsemane. The words carry no cryptic meaning. After Jesus u2019 death, burial, resurrection, and ascension into heaven, His relationship with the disciples would change. During His earthly ministry, they had enjoyed freedom of expression with Him, since He was in their midst. From henceforth, however, they would not be addressing Him as they had, but would pray to the Father through Him.

Brother Guy N. Woods says essentially the same thing in the Gospel Advocate Commentary on John:

There would always be the need of daily bestowal of blessings, physical and temporal, and these the Father would gladly give them when they petitioned the Father for them in the Son u2019s name. To ask u201cin his name u201d was to ask by his authority and in harmony with his will (347-48).

Probably most people agree with this commentary because it seems to reflect the meaning of the passage. However, it contradicts Hallenbeck u2019s (and Apologetics Press u2019s?) doctrine; so the waters must be muddied a bit. Therefore, he quotes not from that commentary but from something else Brother Woods wrote in Volume 2 of Questions and Answers. The pertinent part of this quote is bolded by Hallenbeck as he quotes from Brother Woods.

It is a misinterpretation of John 16:23, 24 to draw from it the conclusion that Jesus therefore forbade any address to him. It is of course very true that our prayers are to be addressed to the Father u201cin the name u201d of Christ, i.e., by his authority but the words of the foregoing passage were not intended to prohibit any address to him (101).

Reread the entire paragraph again. Does it sound as though Brother Woods is contradicting himself? He is not necessarily doing so, but by bolding the words he does, Hallenbeck tries to get the reader to think that Woods is saying it u2019s all right to pray to Jesus u2014even though he clearly says (in the part that was not bolded) the exact opposite: It is of course very true that our prayers are to be addressed to the Father u201cin the name of Christ u2026. u201d

Naturally, we cannot always know everything a person had in mind when he wrote the words down on paper, but it appears that what Brother Woods was saying was this. We pray to God through Jesus, but John 16:23-24 does not prohibit someone from directly addressing Jesus in conversation. The problem with Hallenbeck (and Jackson) is that they believe that direct address is prayer. That Brother Woods was making an exception for direct address (and not for praying to Jesus) can be seen ironically in one further comment made by Hallenbeck on page 102 about Woods:

He later expresses, u201cFor instances of such direct address to Christ u2026see Acts 7:60 and 9:6. There are many other examples of [direct address] in the New Testament u201d (2:39).

Woods is right. We are to pray to the Father through Jesus, but there are instances of direct address (not prayer) to Jesus after His ascension. Stephen spoke directly to Him (Acts 7:59). Saul of Tarsus had a conversation with Jesus (Acts 9:6, 13). However, every time Hallenbeck reads of conversations like these, he assumes that prayer is involved. Woods is right on this; Hallenbeck mistakenly thinks he agrees with his position. If he did, this quote does not prove it.

After these comments, Hallenbeck takes another excursion around the barn and eventually quotes from W.E. Vine as agreeing with him. The dictionary author affirms that people prayed to Jesus after the ascension and cites Acts 1:24 (the alleged prayer to Jesus, discussed previously), Acts 7:59 (what a shock), and Acts 9:13 (Saul u2019s conversion). None of these prove Vine u2019s assertion. Most of the other sources cited, like Barnes, are likewise basing praying to Jesus on Stephen (107). Someone should count the amount of times Acts 7:59-60 are actually cited in this book. If it does not prove Hallenbeck u2019s case the first time, it will not the hundredth, either.

It is truly amazing that Hallenbeck never tires of quoting Acts 1:24, Acts 7:59-60, or 2 Corinthians 12:8-9 u2014all of which have been examined previously. They show up again on page 109. Here he added Acts 22:10, which is part of the conversation between Saul of Tarsus and Jesus. All of these continue to be classified as u201cprayers. u201d The reader grows weary of reading the same old pitch. Apparently, Dave Miller and the other endorsers of the book at Apologetics Press must have enjoyed Hallenbeck u2019s belaboring of this false tenet ad infinitum.

"Some Objections"

The reader may be surprised to see a reference on page 110 to Mark 20:30-31 u2014especially when Mark only has 16 chapters; Weylan Deaver u2019s red pen must have missed that. The reader will figure out that he meant John 20:30-31. But the reader may wonder what point he is making here. He claims that Ephesians 5:20, Philippians 4:6, and Colossians 3:17 do not prove that the Father is always to be the object of prayer. One wonders how else the Holy Spirit might have made this point when inspiring the words of the New Testament to be written.

He launches into a point about needing Biblical authority for what we do based on Colossians 3:17, which is true. He quotes his father-in-law, Dave Miller, as citing John Eadie commenting on this text: u201cTo speak in His name, or to act in His name, is to speak and act not to His honour, but under His sanction and with the conviction of His approval u201d (111). Okay, but the reader who knows the past cannot help but ask, u201cWhen Dave preached that sermon in favor of elder re-evaluation, in which the elders needed a 75% approval rating of the congregation to remain elders, was that under His sanction and with His approval?

But to return to this subject, Hallenbeck cautions the reader: u201cSome assert that u2018giving thanks to God the Father through him u2019 means that our thanks are directed to God and only through Jesus u201d (111). Yes, that does seem reasonable. He complains that some brethren try to make always and everything literal (111). Wow! They sure seem literal. Where are we going wrong here? He says that Acts 4:24 proves otherwise u2014that we can pray to Jesus. We have already shown that Acts 4:24 is addressed to the Father.

Hallenbeck wastes space showing that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all had a part in the Creation, which presumably most Christians know. Then he talks about the word Savior applying to both the Father and the son (112). These truths no one will disagree with, but they are not relevant to praying to the Father through the Son.

The author provides five useless examples to try to establish his case, which the reader should have no trouble seeing through. He begins with 2 Corinthians 8:7: u201cBut as you abound in everything u2014in faith, in speech, in knowledge, in all diligence, and in your love for us u2014see that you abound in this grace also. u201d Some would think that your congenial editor was making this up if he tried to paraphrase the next sentence, so here it is the way Hallenbeck wrote it:

If everything literally means everything then why did Paul include u201cgrace also u201d? If they excelled in all these things, there would be no need to include grace (112-13).

Really? Is it not obvious that Paul means that they abounded in all the other graces about which they had been taught u2014and that they needed to abound in this one as well? This is not an exception to everything u2014if a person understands the meaning of the verse in its context.

Second, based on Colossians 1:18, if Jesus is preeminent, is the Father not then (113)? Come, come. Does Hallenbeck not think the reader will remember 1 Corinthians 15:27: u201cFor u2018He has put all things under His feet. u2019 But when He says u2018all things are put under Him, u2019 it is evident that He who put all things under Him is excepted u201d?

The third example relates to children obeying their parents in everything. Shall they then murder, if asked to (113)? How silly! Do readers not understand that Paul meant everything that is not immoral. Examples such as these are a waste of time.

Fourth, Hallenbeck asks: if we are to enjoy everything God gave us, can we indulge in everything that pleases the flesh (113)? Right! We would all come away thinking that, wouldn u2019t we? Of course, we know Paul means all legitimate things.

The last example is actually one a little more pertinent, but bizarre, nevertheless. One wonders what can be the issue with u201cin everything God may be glorified through Jesus Christ u201d (1 Peter 4:11). Yet Hallenbeck asks: u201cIs Christ not to be glorified? u201d (113). The idea is that if we only glorify the Father, Jesus would be left out. No, if we glorify the Father through Jesus, how is our Lord and Savior not included in the glory? If we say that God has saved us through His Son, then are not both God and Jesus our Savior? It is likewise, then with glorifying Him. What these examples are not parallel with, however, is addressing prayers to the Father through Jesus.

Mediator

The author cites Wayne Jackson: u201cIf one may communicate directly with only the Father, and the Son is thus completely excluded, how does Jesus function in the role of our u201cmediator u201d (1 Tim. 2:5)? u201d (116). The image presented by Jackson assumes that we must tell Jesus our side of the story, which then enables Him to plead our case to the Father.

The fact is that God is holy and just, but we have sinned. Jesus knows what it is like to be holy; He has never been anything else u2014not even when He was upon the earth. He also knows what it is like to be a human being, since He lived as one. Even though He never gave in, He certainly knows what it is like to be tempted. Therefore, He is the perfect one to mediate. He thoroughly understands both sides. We do not have to tell Him each personal sin we have committed for Him to know what it is. Being omniscient, He already knows. He is not an earthly mediator who must be apprised of the details before He can do anything; Jesus already knows and is performing His role without having to be instructed. We still pray to the Father through Him.