Praying to Jesus (Questions) (Part 1)
\\
"Judge not according to the appearance, but judge righteous judgment" (John 7:24).
Not too long ago I wrote some articles on this subject, and recently someone questioned that material, which is excellent. Although some people never like to be challenged, it is actually profitable for two reasons. If what has been set forth is error, then it furnishes an opportunity to make a correction. If the position is correct, it only strengthens the case when making a defense of it. The person who wrote, who will be called Marta (not the actual name) began with no civilities but simply wrote: "I have read through your articles on praying to the Lord Jesus." There followed four numbered criticisms, followed by a "Thank you." Assuming that I was supposed to respond, I did, but rather than replicating all four points at once here, the conversation on each point will be given before moving on to the next point. Explanations may also be added when helpful to clarify the issue.
Marta: Acts 1:24, 25: The evidence overwhelmingly points that the Lord Jesus is being prayed to here. Those who believe otherwise don't have much to refute this. Not only by the use of "Lord" but also in that the same verb for "chosen" is used by Luke in specific reference to the Lord Jesus in Acts 1:2, etc., etc.
Gary: In my judgment, this is your best example, but in the absence of the name of Jesus, it is still speculation. The word Lord refers to both the Father and the Son. For an example of when Lord refers to the Father, read the prayer in Acts 4:24-30, where there can be no doubt. You cannot prove that Jesus is intended in this passage [Acts 1:24-25].
Marta: Lord primarily refers to the Son. Who did Luke just previously say chose (same Greek word used in Acts 1:24) the apostles in Acts 1:2? More proofs will be given that this is a prayer to the Lord Jesus when this question is answered.
Gary: Acts 1:24 does indeed say that Jesus chose His apostles. Even if it did not, we know from the gospel accounts that He did (Luke 6:12-16). Acts 1:2 also reminds us that what Jesus did, in giving commands to the apostles, He did through the Holy Spirit. I am reminded that He came to do the Father's will (John 6:38) and that even His teaching was not His own (John 12:49-50). Since the Father, as well as the Holy Spirit, are involved in so much of what happened, it is just as possible, if not more likely, that Lord in 1:24 refers to the Father. The fact that chosen is used in verse 2 cannot be regarded as sufficient to prove your case. [The reader will notice that Marta did not comment on the use of the word Lord as referring to the Father in Acts 4:24-30).]
Marta: Acts 1:24 - same word applies to Christ in verse 2. This word is never used in reference to the Father as "Lord" in choosing the apostles. Moreover the word "show" (anadeiknumi) is used only of Christ in Luke 10:1. The evidence keeps mounting that this prayer is to Christ - don't worry there is more.
Gary: Acts 1:24. I already answered that one, too. You just ignore what I have written. Your argumentation is invalid because your sampling is too small. How many times did Jesus choose apostles? Just because the same word is used twice does not prove your case. You are making deductions that are unwarranted. I'm not worried in the slightest; all of your evidence is circumstantial. If you had a compelling argument, you would have already used it. What I wrote still stands.
Marta: Acts 1:24 - "Lord" is used of Christ just prior to the prayer in Acts 1:6 and Acts 1:21. The use of "chosen" points to Christ (Acts 1:2) - Luke never uses this word to the Father in "choosing" the apostles. "Show" is used only one other time and that by the same author to Christ (Luke 10:1). Wow Gary you have such a strong case that this prayer is to the Father!
Gary: I never said I had a strong case that this prayer is addressed to the Father. What I said was that your case is flimsy and not substantial or convincing. In light of other teaching on this subject (Ps. 119:160), there is not enough evidence you have presented to convince anyone that this is definitely Jesus.
Marta: I supplied three lines of evidence so far. Would it help if I supplied the two more I have? No, because no matter what evidence, you would refuse to "see" it while holding both hands over your eyes saying, "It's not there." Pathetic.
Marta terminated correspondence after writing this last message. Just because someone makes an argument does not mean that it is a valid one. I pointed out that the evidence was weak. What good does it do to say that the Bible never says that the Father chose apostles when everyone knows that Jesus is the one who selected them. Neither of us proved who the Lord was in Acts 1:24-25, but I did not have to prove that it was not Jesus; my only requirement was to show that it could refer to the Father, and Acts 4:24-30 does so. Marta had no compelling evidence to offer.
Jesus and Stephen
Marta: Acts 7:59, 60: That Stephen is praying to the Lord Jesus is obvious. If a Roman Catholic said those same words in the same kind of circumstance to Mary the mother of Jesus we would know for sure they were praying to Mary.
Gary: Stephen speaks to Jesus; He makes a request of Him, person to person. If he were not looking directly at Jesus but just praying, you would have a case. The thief on the cross made a request of Jesus, also. Does anyone regard that as a prayer? If Mary were on the right hand of God, then someone would be entitled to ask her something, also, but I still would not regard it as a prayer.
Marta: Prove that Stephen was looking "directly at Jesus" when he spoke to the Lord Jesus…. After seeing the Lord Jesus on the right hand of God He doesn't "then say...." I noticed you skipped the part about him being driven out of the city. The Bible doesn't skip it but you did. Again you asserted that Stephen was looking directly at the Lord Jesus when he spoke to Him. Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Gary: You are correct that there were intervening actions between verse 56 and verse 59. I will acknowledge that the idea that Stephen was looking directly at Christ is an assumption. But there is no reason to assume that the Lord had suddenly disappeared, either. The text does not say either way. So let's say that Stephen could no longer see Jesus standing at the right hand of God. BTW, almost every passage has Jesus seated at the right hand of God (Mark 16:19; Luke 22:69; Heb. 10:12; Col. 3:1). Some just say that Jesus is at the right hand of God. This is the only time that Jesus is said to be standing, which denotes great concern. After showing this great concern, Jesus could have just disappeared, I suppose. But even if He had, Stephen still had impressed upon his mind this image; so, whether he could still see Him or not (and there is no reason to suppose he could not), he still called out to Him to receive His spirit. And it still was no more of a request than the thief on the cross. A simple request is still not the same as a prayer. When Peter was sinking, he cried out, "Lord, save me." Was he praying or calling for help to the only One Who could save him? Your twisting of the Scriptures to try to turn this into a prayer remains ineffective.
Marta: Acts 7:59 - So since the text does not say Stephen saw the Lord Jesus when he spoke to Him then for you to have previously affirmed so is an assumption without proof. The rest of your response is just more assumption. [Then are listed five sources that define what Stephen said as a prayer (as though other sources do not deny the assumption).]
Gary: Once again, scholars give their interpretation that this is a prayer, but the assumption does not make it so. It is a fact that Stephen saw Jesus. It is a fact that Jesus was still on his mind, or he would not have called to Him. It is a fact that he made a request of Jesus. It is not a fact that Stephen prayed to Jesus. Your quibbling over whether Stephen actually saw Him at the crucial moment is silly. Also, you have no reason to think that he did not see Him. This leaves you, then, with only assumptions.
Marta: The rest of your email is just rambling on about how scholars are divided and it is just their interpretation, ignoring the fact that what you offer is an interpretation. Whenever heretics or those who teach false doctrine can't supply just one lexicon or dictionary of their own but dismiss all that I supply it's time to move on. I deal with how words are properly defined while you can keep your make believe fairy tale definitions to support your make believe fairy tale theology.
The commentators who say that Stephen prayed to Jesus are giving their opinion. The text does not use the word prayer in either the noun or the verb form. Stephen was calling upon God and saying, "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit," but nothing describes his words as a prayer.
"Calling on the Name of the Lord"
Marta: 1 Corinthians 1:2: To call upon the name of the Lord means to pray to. That is how it is always used in the OT. Plenty of lexicons affirm this refers to praying to the Lord Jesus.
Gary: Do you regard "calling on the name of the Lord" in Acts 2:21 as referring to prayer, and if so, to whom? In Acts 22:16, do you regard "calling on the name of the Lord" as prayer, and if so, to whom?
Marta: 1 Corinthians 1:2 - I still don't know if you agree or not if "calling upon the name of the Lord" is a prayer. Please state if you do or not?
Gary: 1 Cor. 1:2. You did not answer my questions about Acts 2:21 or 22:16. Did you think I would not notice?
Marta: 1 Corinthians 1:2 - You're assertion is a red herring. I was the one who cited how to call upon the name of the Lord means a prayer. Now whether it refers to God (Father) or Christ in the two passages you mentioned is a ruse employed by you to escape from dealing with the fact that calling on the name of the Lord is a prayer and that is exactly what is taught in 1 Corinthians 1:2 in reference to the Lord Jesus. I'm sorry you have to resort to such evasions.
Gary: 1 Cor. 1:2. I made no assertion. I asked you what a phrase in two passages meant, and you ignored it. You really ought to wait until someone makes a faulty argument before you accuse him of a logical fallacy. I offered no evasion—you're the one who failed to answer the question. In fact, you still do not know why I asked it; you only think you do. My question was, what does the phrase mean? Only secondarily did I ask to whom it was addressed. You might try answering the question now, if you are through making irrelevant charges.
Marta: 1 Corinthians 1:2: To call upon the name of the Lord means to pray to. That is how it is always used in the OT. Plenty of lexicons affirm this refers to praying to the Lord Jesus. This is what I first wrote concerning the phrase within this passage. Plenty of lexicons and dictionaries agree with me that this refers to praying to the Lord Jesus while all you have to offer is a red herring. [Some sources are cited.]
Gary: Apparently, you are unaware of the fact that lexicons and commentaries do not always agree with each other. The question is, "What does the text say?" You finally gave an answer when you said, "To call upon the name of the Lord means to pray to." Now that you have committed yourself, let's look at both texts. First, let's look at Acts 2:21. Does "Whoever calls upon the name of the Lord shall be saved" refer to prayer, period? No, it does not refer to prayer either to the Father or to Jesus. How do we know that? We know because we never find anyone doing that to procure salvation even one time in the entire book of Acts or anywhere else in the New Testament.
The people asked Peter what they should do in Acts 2:37, once he convinced them they had crucified the Messiah but that God had raised Him from the dead. What did Peter tell them to do? He did not say, "Oh, just pray, like the prophet Joel said," did he?
He told them to repent of their sins and to be baptized for the forgiveness of their sins. In fact, this is the way one calls upon the name of the Lord for salvation. How do we know that? Acts 22:16 makes it so plain that you cannot miss it (although I am guessing that you will). Saul of Tarsus, the great persecutor of the church had been PRAYING for three days (Acts 9:11). Nevertheless, Saul was not saved by prayer, because he still was in his sins. Notice carefully that after Saul felt extreme sorrow over his sins, Ananias came to him and said (choose one):
a. "Saul, why don't you pray to Jesus?"
b. "And now why are you waiting? Arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, CALLING on the name of the Lord."
The way one calls on the name of the Lord both in Acts 2:21 and Acts 22:16 is not through prayer, but through obedience. It does not matter how many lexicons or commentaries you cite; the text does not teach what they say, and if you are honest, you will see what both texts say. Are we saying that the lexicons and commentaries are dishonest? Not necessarily. But their theology obviously got in the way of understanding what these two verses actually say.
Marta chose not to deal with any of the above explanation, which is not surprising, since there would be little to say by way of response. Just because a commentator or lexicographer alleges that these verses refer to praying to Jesus does not make it so. The meaning must not only fit the text but also other related teachings on the topic. Acts 22:16 provides the Scriptural definition for the means of calling on the name of the Lord as it pertains to salvation. When a choice exists between what learned men say and the Bible says, a person should go with the Scriptures, since they are inspired while men are not. As for 1 Corinthians 1:2, when Paul refers to Christians "who in every place call on the name of Jesus Christ our Lord, both their and ours," he does not mean that Christians are praying to Jesus. This is simply a way of describing our relationship with God. Christians call upon God constantly (therefore, present tense) by living obediently to Him (cf. 9:14).