Praying to Jesus: A Review (Part 7)
The remainder of chapter four continues with material that, for the most part, either does not address the topic or reiterates what has already been said. Pages 137-41, for example, show that each member of the Godhead possesses the same characteristics—something we all know and agree with. The chart neither establishes the idea that therefore we must pray to Jesus, nor does it refute the position that the majority of brethren hold. The fact that all three personalities have the same nature is not, however, the same thing as saying that “God the Father, God the Son and God the Spirit are used interchangeably” (142). His chart did not prove that.
In fact, he talks about Jesus being our Mediator (115-16) and our High Priest (117-18). If members of the Godhead can be used interchangeably, then can we call the Father or the Holy Spirit our Mediator. Can either of them be our High Priest? What Hallenbeck always fails to understand is that when we discuss praying to the Father through Jesus, we are discussing roles—not worthiness. He spends an inordinate amount of time stressing that Jesus is Deity—a fact which all Christians acknowledge (or they cannot truly be Christians)—while ignoring the fact that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit all exercise different roles in the Godhead.
Jesus’ Roles
As our Mediator, Advocate, and High Priest, Jesus does not need to consult with us to find out where we have fallen short. He already knows and can plead our case. Hallenbeck points out that the word translated “advocate” in 1 John 2:1 is parakletos, the same word used of the Holy Spirit in John 14:26 (116-17). Yes, both Jesus and the Holy Spirit intercede for us. They both perform the same function in that regard. But the Spirit is not the Mediator or the High Priest, and the Father does not intercede on our behalf to the Spirit or the Son. Deity they all possess, but they have different functions.
How often have we stressed that men and women are equal but that God gave men the leadership role in the church and in the home? Feminists cannot be convinced that women are equal unless they can exercise the leadership role as well. Hallenbeck seems to have the same problem with members of the Godhead. If we cannot pray to Jesus, then He somehow is not equal to the Father or worthy of worship. This is the crux of his entire problem. Of course, the same argument can be made of the Holy Spirit. If we cannot pray to Him, then He too must somehow be unworthy. No, He remains Divine, as the Father and the Son.
Mere mortal men did not make up these distinctions of functions within the Godhead; God revealed them to us. We simply need to recognize them.
Hallenbeck argues that giving God glory through Christ does not exclude giving glory to Jesus as well (118-20). True, Jesus is worthy of glory. Do any Christians on either side of the grave dispute this fact? But prayers are still to be addressed to the Father.
Why Did Jesus Tell Disciples to Pray to the Father?
In this portion of the chapter, Hallenbeck tries to refute the passages that we all cite for the precedent of praying to the Father through Jesus; therefore, he feels he must deal with Matthew 6. He states his claim:
It must be understood that I’m not advocating that we forsake addressing God the Father; what I am advocating is that Christ may also be addressed because He is Deity (121).
Was it not just pointed out that he confuses Deity with roles? Probably it will not surprise the reader to find Acts 7:59-60 appealed to again. But the overall answer seems to be that Jesus advocated praying to the Father because of what He gave up in emptying Himself to come to earth. Now, since His ascension, His position has been restored, and He can be addressed in prayer as well as the Father (120-25). Really? Has it not already been pointed out that people asked requests of Jesus personally while He was on the earth (prayers) and that He claimed to be Deity here? Are we now being told that He had to wait till He went back to Heaven to be petitioned in prayer? Why is this not a contradiction in Hallenbeck’s argument?
“In the Name of Jesus” (125-32)
Dave Miller, Kyle Butt, Eric Lyons (essentially Apologetics Press), Guy N. Woods, David Lipscomb, J. W. McGarvey, Wayne Jackson, and Thomas B. Warren are all quoted in this section. Much of the space is devoted to bringing out the meaning of the phrase, and most of it is accurate. But it continues with the theme of the preceding section. Following are some statements of note.
Lipscomb is quoted as saying on Philippians 2:10: “To bow a knee is to worship him and implore [to beg or call upon – A.H.] a divine being….” (127). After the quote, Hallenbeck claims that Lipscomb understood “that Christ is worthy of invocation by employing the term ‘implore’” (127). No debate will be offered on what Lipscomb understood, but petitioning or imploring Jesus for anything is not in the context.
Singing the same chorus again, Hallenbeck warbles: “How can Christ be equal with the Father, yet not worthy of invocation in praise and prayer?” (128). One is tempted to answer: “Read my lips: They are equal, but they have different roles.”
Here the point becomes murky. Were we not told that Jesus should be prayed to now—now that He has returned to Heaven? That seems to imply that people could not make requests to Him while He was on earth. Surely, Hallenbeck does not believe that. A quote states that Jesus forgave sins here, thus proving His Deity and that He also accepted prayer and worship on earth (129), which is true. But Hallenbeck’s point has been that we should address Him in prayer now because He is no longer in the flesh. After this quote, he then seems to revert to the previous point, mentioning events after Jesus’ return to Heaven, such as Paul’s thanks to Christ (Paul had conversations with Jesus), and (no one would ever guess what else is cited; wait for it)—Acts 7:55-60. Whatever point is being made here is unclear—at least, in the way it is framed.
The Deity of Christ (132-42)
The author treats the reader to another ten pages of proof that Jesus is the Son of God, including the chart mentioned previously. One cannot help wonder why he spends so much time affirming what no one denies. Quoting from his father-in-law, Dave Miller, he includes a section which shows that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are all fully God, which is true (and which we all believe); the quote, however, concludes with these words: “For many the concept of Jesus’ deity is a ‘thorn in the flesh’” (133). Really? To whom? That citation is from a book that Dave Miller wrote, The Quran Unveiled, which is listed in the Resources at the end of this book (198).
Seriously? A quote that probably has to do with Muhammad or his followers is quoted to apply to those who disagree with Hallenbeck’s view on praying to Jesus? This is outrageous and is an ad hominem attack of the worst order! If he is not implying that opponents of his view question the Deity of Christ, what is he doing? Is this the “great research” that so impressed Eric Lyons? Is it what Wayne Jackson considers “magnificent?” Or maybe it is the “levelheadedness” that Neal Pollard of Bear Valley enjoyed.
The Basic Argument
Hopefully, the reader of this review will not be put off by repetition, but this is the way Hallenbeck wrote his book. Below is his basic argument.
1. Jesus is as Divine as the Father is.
2. Since the Father is worthy of worship, so is the Son.
3. Since the Father may be prayed to, so may Jesus.
This argument is not in syllogistic form, which is odd considering how often the author quotes Brother Warren. The first two statements are true, but point number three does not logically follow. The reason is that it does not take into consideration the roles that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit have.
But below are quotes to establish that this is precisely the thesis that Hallenbeck possesses.
To reject worship due only God is to inherently reject God Himself. The logical conclusion is that Jesus is worthy of all invocation including praise, petitions, thanksgiving and honor (132).
Jackson: If deity is worthy of worship (cf. Psalm 18:3), and if Jesus is deity (John 10:30), then he is worthy of worship. Jesus himself said that the Son should be honored just as the Father is (John 5:23). And yet, if Christ may not be worshipped, either in prayer or in song (as some allege), how is he to be glorified by his disciples? …
…if deity is worthy of worship, and if Christ is deity, what position is the Christian in, if he withholds all worship from the Savior, and even opposes such? (134-35).
Jackson goes so far as to suggest that if we do not pray to Jesus, we have exalted ourselves as the man of sin (135). Seriously? Those who pray to the Father through Jesus must really get under Jackson’s skin. The ad hominem attacks could scarcely be any stronger.
Hallenbeck asks: “If Christ has “all authority,” does it not seem strange that we may not approach Him in address?” (136). It might—if He had not told us to address the Father through Him.
The same argument Jackson makes for praying to Jesus could be made for praying to the Holy Spirit. If Deity is worthy of worship, and the Holy Spirit is deity, what position is the Christian in, if he withholds all worship from the Holy Spirit, and even opposes such? Of course, criticisms such as these fail to observe the roles that each part of the Godhead plays.
“Worthy Is the Lamb” (142-43)
Stephen is only appealed to three more times in this chapter (136-37, 143); Hallenbeck apparently fears the reader might somehow forget him if his name is omitted for very long. The chapter devoted entirely to him lies only a few pages away.
The point of citing Revelation 4-5 is to show that both the Father and the Son are worthy of worship, which is true. Amen! So why mention it? Hallenbeck does not develop this observation, but he comments thus: “What’s intriguing is that they held ‘a bowl full of incense’ which is representative of the ‘prayers of the saints’” (142). Why is it intriguing? They were not offered up to Jesus, nor did He do anything with them. John does not comment further on them in this text; so why are they so intriguing? Hallenbeck left his readers to muse over the fact but did not suggest any explanations.
Jesus was invoked directly (Rev. 5:9-10). Yes, He was spoken to by those in His presence. Should they have used smoke signals? How does this help him? It does not relate to people on earth praying to Jesus. Surely Hallenbeck can discern the difference.
He cites John saying, “Amen. Even so, come Lord Jesus” (Rev. 22:20). Yes. He said those words in response to what Jesus had just said (whether he saw Him in a vision or directly), which was, “Surely I am coming quickly.” How do these heavenly scenes authorize us on earth to pray to Jesus? They do not.