Praying to Jesus: A Review (Part 8)
The shortest chapter in Andrew Hallenbeck\ book, Praying to Jesus, except for the conclusion, is chapter 5, "Is 'Calling Upon' Prayer?" (145-50). The reason he needs to answer the question, "Yes," is that he thinks he needs it for his next chapter about Stephen, who was "calling upon" the Lord when he died. Since the text does not say, "Stephen prayed to Jesus," Hallenbeck thinks he must make calling upon mean praying to. So how does he try to accomplish this feat?
He cites a few passages (mostly in the Old Testament) where calling upon is used synonymously with praying, such as Psalm 116:1-4. However, he does not inform the reader that the word translated "calling upon" does not always refer to prayer. The Greek word epikaleo [1941] appears 32 times in the New Testament; 11 of those times, the word is translated "surname" or "surnamed." What? How does that connect to the topic? A surname is another name by which someone is called. Obviously, none of these eleven instances has anything to do with praying to anyone.
Does anyone think that Paul prayed to Caesar? Of course not. But he did "appeal" to Caesar, which is mentioned 6 times. Why did Hallenbeck not point out that "calling upon" can also mean "an appeal"? Or that 17 out of 32 times (more than half) epikaleo is used in the New Testament, there is no sense of praying to God involved whatsoever? Is this the wonderful research over which so many went gaga?
Other clear non-instances of prayer include 2 Corinthians 1:23, Hebrews 11:16, and James 2:7. Not counting Acts 7:59, the verse in question, that leaves 11 verses to examine, which are listed below. They speak of calling on God or His name (Acts 2:21; 9:14, 21; 15:17; 22:16; Rom. 10:12-13-14; 1 Cor. 1:2; and 2 Tim. 2:22; 1 Peter 1:17)—but not necessarily in prayer.
Consider two of these, with which we are all familiar. On the Day of Pentecost, Peter quoted from Joel concerning the events now under way: "And it shall come to pass that whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved." How often have we all heard sermons where this verse is linked to Acts 22:16, where Saul of Tarsus is told: "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on the name of the Lord"? The speaker then comments, "Being baptized is the proper way to call on the name of the Lord."
What does calling on the name of the Lord mean in other verses? It seems to refer to those who have made the decision to become Christians, who have confessed that Jesus is the Son of God. The other verse is 1 Peter 1:17. Here, calling on the Father might mean praying, but it may also refer to calling on Him in the overall sense, as the other verses do. So, epikaleo does not refer to an individual praying.
The Problem With "Calling Upon"
As Hallenbeck tries to prove that epikaleo refers to prayer, he runs into a snag. If calling upon always refers to praying, then in Acts 2:21, people are saved by praying: "…whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved." Whoops! The old saying is that what proves too much proves nothing. Hallenbeck sees the problem; so he includes Index A (177-83) to show that one cannot just pray for salvation. Thus, he admits that epikaleo is not always synonymous with praying. It is, however, a fatal admission because the point of chapter five is that epikaleo is the same as praying. He does offer one disclaimer—"if the context indicates" (146). While technically correct, the whole point of chapter five is to show calling upon and prayer as interchangeable words. As has been shown, however, they rarely, if ever, are in the New Testament.
Chapter Six: "Stephen and Prayer" (151-71)
At last the long-awaited moment has arrived. The author has only mentioned Stephen on about every other page, but he now devotes an entire chapter to him. What more can he say than he already has? The background on the first martyr is fine (151). But then he makes a logical blunder: he assumes the very thing he is to prove by quoting from a "translation" that says, "Stephen prayed" (152). Every major translation appropriately translates epikaleo as "called upon" or "calling upon." Did none of the endorsers of the book notice this flaw? He needs to prove that calling upon means praying; he cannot assume it on the basis of a few minor or even major mistranslations.
His thesis now becomes "…Stephen’s vision and his prayer were clearly two isolated events(152). Again, he assumes what he has not demonstrated. He still has not proven that Stephen was engaged in praying to Jesus, nor has he proved that Stephen was not still seeing Jesus. Then he argues that Stephen knew the penalty for blasphemy and that, therefore, he did not blaspheme by praying to Jesus (153)—a hypothesis still not proved!
Notwithstanding the lack of evidence, the next section is titled, "Stephen’s Prayer." Perhaps Hallenbeck thinks if he repeats it often enough, the reader will not notice he has never logically made his case. He does list how the major translations render Acts 7:59, listing the ones that use "praying" first (McCord and the NIV—no shock there) (154). At this point he makes an observation that finally puts the previous chapter in perspective. "As was seen in chapter 5, to 'call upon' can mean an invocation if so determined by the context…" (154). However, it was not clear in 31 out of 32 times that prayer was intended, leaving only this passage to render a decision upon. That it is direct address seems obvious; that Stephen is praying is not.
Recurring Fallacy
Hallenbeck consistently refuses to consider roles in the Godhead, such as Jesus being Mediator and High Priest, while prayers are addressed to the Father. Once again, he states: "If one is to reject prayer to Christ, then the Father and Son’s nature are not 'exact'" (154). Really? Then what would be wrong with the following sentence: "If one is to reject prayer to the Holy Spirit, then the Father and Spirit’s nature are not 'exact'"? Will there be a sequel to this book—Praying to the Holy Spirit?
Before returning to the thesis of this chapter, already introduced, Hallenbeck decides to quote from commentaries who agree with him (does no one disagree?). Some of the names he presents are Wayne Jackson (hardly a surprise), Burton Coffman, Thomas B. Warren, F.F. Bruce, Bruce Metzger, J.W. McGarvey, H. Leo Boles, M.R. Vincent, A.T. Robertson, Albert Barnes, Adam Clarke, the Jamieson-Fausset-Brown Commentary, John Wesley, Johnson’s Notes, G.T. Stokes, and John Gill (154-57). While the list is impressive, the evidence of the text makes the decision—not the number of people who cast ballots for the two positions under consideration.
A few years ago, Goebel Music put together a 1,414-page tome on the indwelling of the Holy Spirit, in which he had hundreds of quotes from brethren who agreed with him. To be sure, a number did not agree, but their rationale was not considered. The same comments were repeated ad infinitum with very little original thinking. [Interestingly, if anyone wants to know Mac Deaver’s (Weylan’s father’s) position on the Holy Spirit, read his own words from pages 710-11 cited in the Addendum.] Quoting a large number of scholars who agree with a position does not prove one’s case.
Two Different Locations
After a considerable amount of verbiage, Hallenbeck concludes that Stephen saw the vision of Jesus near the temple precincts but was dragged out of the city to be stoned. The text tells us of the two different locations succinctly: "And they cast him out of the city and stoned him" (Acts 7:58a).
Was it a vision Stephen saw (160-61)? The text does not so state. How do we know that his eyes were not opened as the servant of Elisha’s was? The servant saw himself and his master as being surrounded, but Elisha prayed that his eyes might be opened, after which he saw "the mountain was full of chariots of fire all around Elisha" (2 Kings 6:17). What Stephen saw could have easily been real rather than a vision.
It is a mistake, Hallenbeck says, to assume that the vision occurred at the same moment as the stoning (161). Who has assumed so? On the other hand, would it not be an assumption that Jesus found something else to grab His attention and quit being concerned once Stephen was dragged out of the city?
The author takes up even more space wondering where the spot of the execution took place and how far away from the temple it might have been and how much time elapsed (163-65)—as if those details mattered a whit! What Hallenbeck does not prove is that what Stephen had seen previously (whether vision or reality) had disappeared. He rambles on about data irrelevant to the situation and then considers his position is correct and those who disagree are wrong. Simply calling attention to two different locations and a time difference between them does not in any way prove that Stephen did not still see Jesus!
Page 166 summarizes all of the above data, but it still doesn’t prove Hallenbeck’s assumption that Jesus was no longer present. Nevertheless, he states: "The author adamantly rejects the notion that Stephen prayed to the Lord Jesus while seeing a vision." On what grounds, Andrew? You do not know that Jesus disappeared. If so, when, and why did He leave? Did He just say to Himself, "Well, I made an appearance; My work here is done"? Poor Stephen was taken hold of—and who knows how much abused—and cast out of the city. As he is being stoned, perhaps he looks up into heaven again for reassurance—but sees nothing, according to Hallenbeck. Are we affirming that Jesus was there? Not adamantly, like Hallenbeck. But if the Lord was concerned enough to be standing to observe what was occurring, at what point did He lose interest? The fact that Stephen spoke to Him suggests He was still there. If not, why not?
This chapter fades out with the same tired mantras that Jesus is Divine and worthy of worship (even though no one disagrees with that point) and the admonition that Jesus is not less worthy of praise and prayer since He has arisen to sit on the throne (170). Identifying those who hold a different position on praying to Jesus as somehow not believing in the Deity of Christ is a huge red herring—and it smells. Failure to acknowledge the roles that each member of the Godhead holds is inexcusable. The fact that prayers are addressed to the Father through the Son does not mean that either Jesus or the Holy Spirit are not part of the Godhead.
Addendum
In the "Acknowledgments," Hallenbeck says he was extremely grateful to Weylan Deaver and others for helping with the book in some capacity (5). Weylan is Mac Deaver’s son and, so far as we know, is in agreement with his father’s positions on the Holy Spirit. Even though the Holy Spirit is not the subject of Hallenbeck’s book, one cannot help but wonder why he would consult with someone who holds Mac’s views. Here is what Mac affirmed (and still holds).
Mac claims that the Holy Spirit directly influences the human spirit. "It is as direct as the influence of a demon upon a human spirit possessed by it." That’s not all. He continues: "It is as direct as the influence of the Holy Spirit upon the human spirit of an inspired man." The reader’s lower jaw should have dropped to his feet.
Mac mentions one more: "It is as direct as the influence of the human spirit upon the human body in which it exists" (710-11 of Goebel Music’s A Resource and Reference Volume of the Indwelling of the Holy Spirit). If Mac and Weylan believe this doctrine of the direct influence of the Holy Spirit, then what about Hallenbeck, Dave Miller, and those at Apologetics Press? If they are not forthcoming about their views (yes, I agree; no, I don’t agree), perhaps brethren—especially those supporting AP—should press them on the matter. The same question might be asked of Neal Pollard (associated with Bear Valley) who held a meeting for Weylan Deaver.