The fact that the Lord Jesus receives doxologies (hymns of praise) is another proof that He was prayed to (2 Timothy 4:18; 2 Peter 3:18 and Revelation 1:5, 6).
Very significant is the fact that He is the recipient of the prayer in Acts 1:24, 25. Here He is referred to as “kardiognwstes” (lit. “heart-knower) of all. Thus omniscience is applied to Him.

Elias said:
“And when Christ is spoken to directly, it’s because the person sees Christ in vision (for example, Stephen in Acts, and John in Revelation).”

When we pay close attention to the account of the vision we see this:

Act 7:58 When they had driven him out of the city, they began stoning him; and the witnesses laid aside their robes at the feet of a young man named Saul.

Stephen saw the vision while he was in the city. After Stephen told what he saw then they dragged him out of the city and started stoning him. It is at this point that Stephen says:

Act 7:59 They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!”
Act 7:60 Then falling on his knees, he cried out with a loud voice, “Lord, do not hold this sin against them!” Having said this, he fell asleep.

The account does not even hint that Stephen saw the vision again. Stephen’s prayer to Jesus takes place some time after his vision of Jesus. There is a period of time required for them to drag Stephen out of the city and to stone him to death. Without Stephen having Jesus in a vision in front of him, there should be no denial that this is a prayer to Jesus. Elias assumes the vision is continuing on but he seems to have forgotten that there were events between the vision and the stoning.

Elias,

Your first argument assumes that the angel of the LORD was a creature. Where the angel of the LORD is identified as the LORD or as God, Christians traditionally have understood this figure as a preincarnate Christophany (appearance of Christ). Besides, later you disqualify any examples of praying to Jesus in which the one offering prayer to him saw him. If that argument is valid, why would it not apply to the angel of the LORD?

You claim that it is “obvious” that the verses I cited refer to prayer to God and not to Jesus. It isn’t obvious to me. In 2 Corinthians 12:8-9, Paul says he addressed “the Lord,” which in Paul’s vocabulary almost always refers to Jesus. Then the one to whom Paul prayed answered by referring to “my power”–after which Paul immediately expresses confidence in “the power of Christ.” This would appear to confirm that “the Lord” to whom he spoke was Christ.

When Stephen addressed Jesus, he didn’t merely speak to him; he stated that he saw Jesus at God’s right hand (i.e., sharing God’s throne), and asked Jesus to receive his spirit and to forgive his killers. Those two actions Stephen asked Jesus to do are divine prerogatives. And Luke says that Stephen “called upon” Jesus to do these things. So this was prayer to deity, not simply talking one person to another.

Finally, to “call upon” someone or to “call upon the name of” someone, in reference to a supernatural or heavenly being, meant to pray to them as a deity. This is not the same thing as praying to the Father and tacking on the words “in Jesus’ name.”

See the chapter on praying to Jesus in my book _Putting Jesus in His Place: The Case for the Deity of Christ_, for a more complete defense of the points made here.

Rob, regarding the following statement:

“No creature in the Old Testament hears and answers prayer on God’s behalf, and in fact the Old Testament everywhere assumes that Jehovah is the only proper recipient of prayer, as has been documented.”

This is wrong, because you know that the Angel of the Lord was spoken to as if he was God. In other words, that’s a creation standing in the place of God, receiving communication that might normally be done in prayer.

Also, in the first paragraph you cite a number of verses to supposedly support “prayer to Jesus”. The ones that actually mention prayer are obviously in reference to God, not Christ (2 Cor 12:8-9 for example).

And when Christ is spoken to directly, it’s because the person sees Christ in vision (for example, Stephen in Acts, and John in Revelation).

Finally, verses that say that they “called on the name of Jesus” are not problematic for those who pray only to the Father, since every prayer to the Father is said in the name of the Son. (See John 16:23)

In our DVD series on the Trinity called “The Trinity Eternity Past to Eternity Future” I have audio clips on Bruce Ware’s teaching on the Trinity including a clip where he states that “we ought not to pray to Jesus”. You can hear the clip here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLe-qF2nptA There are a couple of important quotes on this preview, but the particular clip where Bruce Ware says that we ought not to pray to Jesus is at the 7 minute mark.

Ware is wrong, as the examples from John 14 and Stephen’s death point out.

This blog post summarizes an email exchange with Dr. Ware on this topic.

http://strivetoenter.com/wim/2007/12/21/jesus-unequal-in-prayer/

Cheryl writes,

“In my research for our new DVD on the Trinity I am amazed that the teaching that God has a hierarchy of “roles” has some convinced that it is the Father alone who hears and answers prayer. This is Bruce Ware’s position in his book on the Trinity called “Father, Son, & Holy Spirit”.

In email dialog with Dr. Ware, he has made it clear to me that he does not believe that it is a sin to pray to Jesus; however even though it is not a sin, these types of prayers do not go anywhere because Jesus does not have the role of hearing and answering prayer. On page 152-3 of his book he defines the only way to come to God in prayer. One must go to the Father alone in prayer and come through the authority of Jesus. Without coming to the Father alone and praying “in Jesus name, Amen”, at the end of our prayers, (signifying that we are coming in the authority of Jesus) our prayers will not go to God and our words will be empty, vain words.”

I am especially concerned because Dr. Ware has written a theology for children, and I would want to have an open dialogue on whether children should be taught that only God has authority and only God can answer prayer.

It seems to me that it is incorrect to conclude that we must end every prayer with the words, “in Jesus name”. Praying in His name, from what I can tell by reading the NT, means praying in His authority, because we have the required relationship with Him. I don’t think it means turning a prayer into a magical incantation. Consequently, I rarely end my prayers with the tag line “in Jesus name.” In whose else name would I be praying?

In regard to Ware, here is another telling quote from his book:

“Yet notice one more detail. Paul begins his prayer bowing his knees neither to the Son nor to the Spirit but to the Father, “from whom every family in heaven and on earth is named.” The Father then is the Sovereign Ruler over heaven and earth, controlling even the very names that every creature is given. From this position of sovereign supremacy, it is the Father who has the authority to grant this prayer’s fulfillment, and so ultimately all glory and thanksgiving must go to him.

Because of this, Paul prays to the Father that the Spirit will enlarge the likeness and experience of Christ in those who believe. As Paul’s prayer so clearly indicates, then, the Spirit works in our sanctification to bring honour and glory to the Son, to the ultimate glory of the Father.”

regards,
John

Sue and Nick,

Thanks for bringing this information about Ware’s view to my attention. This is something I think will deserve a separate response.

Eric Pement,

I can’t believe I missed that one! I think you’re right about 1 John 5:14-15. I went back a few more verses and the context continues to support the Son as the person referenced in verses 14-15. Thanks for this valuable insight.