One of the greatest blessings that we have is the privilege of addressing God. That the Creator would give lowly creatures the opportunity to address their concerns to Him is astounding. This is why prayer needs to be integral part of the Christian’s life. "Devote yourselves to prayer..." (Col. 4:2).

Now the question is, may a Christian address Jesus? Though this issue has not caused many splits, it has still been a question over which brethren have differed. Some are adamant that the Bible allows us to only address the Father, and that, in such instructions, we are not permitted to address Jesus at all. Others, such as myself, believe that the Bible does authorize addressing Jesus. Before stating a few Biblical reasons why I believe this is so, I first want to state a couple of preliminary matters.

1. It is an issue of authority. I affirm that the Bible authorizes addressing Jesus. I will not be taking the position that the Bible doesn’t say not to. I will attempt to show the positive authority for it.

2. It is not a matter of ignoring the Father. By affirming the right to address Jesus in prayer, I am not arguing that we should do so instead of addressing the Father. It does not follow that it is one or the other. I believe all of the passages that tell us to pray to the Father (e.g., Eph. 5:20). But to say that we should thank the Father for all things does not imply that we cannot therefore also thank Jesus. Further to say that we should pray "in the name of Jesus" does not mean that we cannot address Jesus at all, especially when we do so by His authority. I could not favor addressing Jesus to the neglect of addressing the Father, as such would be ignoring other instructions.

Now I wish to consider several passages that relate to this question. Some appear more obvious than others; and some will be given simply for further study on the issue. There may be others that should be considered also.

Passages Relating to Addressing Jesus

1. Acts 7:59. Stephen spoke to the council in defense of Jesus. They became so angry that they took Stephen out of the city and stoned him to death. As they were stoning him, Stephen addressed Jesus: "Lord Jesus, receive my spirit." Then he continued: "Lord, do not hold this sin against them."

No one can deny that Stephen addressed Jesus here. Why would this not be enough to demonstrate that it is right to address Jesus? Because some argue that it was the special circumstances here that permitted Stephen to do this. He was the first martyr and he saw Jesus standing at the right hand of the Father. And some even argue that this is not truly a prayer.

In response, though, we should note the progression of events. Stephen was still before the council, inside the city, when he saw Jesus. Then they drove him out of the city and stoned him. At the time of the stoning, there is no indication that Stephen was still seeing Jesus. But all of this still does not get to the heart of the point. If addressing Jesus is wrong, then upon what grounds do special circumstances make it right? If nothing else, this passages proves that it is not inherently wrong to address Jesus. Special circumstances do not make an inherently wrong action right. And frankly, saying that this is not really prayer sounds a bit too much like grasping for straws. Did Stephen make a request of Jesus or not? May we make similar requests? On what grounds would it be wrong to do so while it was right for Stephen?

2. 1 Timothy 1:12. Paul wrote, "I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has strengthened me..." My question regarding this statement is, did he or did he not thank Jesus? One might argue that he thanked Jesus only indirectly, but what would be the point of that? Does it not make more sense to think that this statement is the result of his actual practice? Does a person really thank another by stating it in such an indirect way? Would Paul have sinned if he actually said, "Thank you, Jesus"? It would seem that if it were wrong to thank Jesus, then Paul’s statement here would encourage the practice of something wrong. Someone may be tempted to use this statement as an indication that it is okay to really thank Jesus. Even if one does not want to take this as a direct statement of authority for addressing Jesus, at the least we may infer that such a practice (i.e., directly thanking Jesus) is no violation of God’s will.

3. Hebrews 1:10-12. Hebrews 1 demonstrates the superiority of Jesus over the angels. He is God; through Him the Father has spoken. In the midst of speaking about the Son, verses 10-12 quote from Psalm 102 and they are applied to Jesus. This is particularly significant because Psalm 102 begins this way: "Hear my prayer, O LORD!" (Yahweh). The quote comes from verses 25-27. But note that the quote comes from a prayer to Yahweh. So, we have at least two important points to note here: a. Jesus is Yahweh, and b. a prayer to Yahweh is applied to Jesus. By inspiration then, we have an inspired prayer applied to Jesus. If it is wrong to address Jesus, then how could this have possibly been done?

One may object that this is from the Old Testament. Yes, but it is still applied to Jesus in the New Testament. Question, may one take this passage, a portion of a prayer applied to Jesus, and use it in a prayer, making the very same application that was made in both the Old and New Testaments? If so, then we must, of necessity, address Jesus in prayer in using this passage. But again, if it is wrong to address Jesus, then one will need to show the biblical reasoning behind why this passage is nullified from consideration.

4. 2 Corinthians 12:8. The question here is whether the "Lord," in this context, is Jesus or the Father. I believe the context suggests this is Jesus. When the Lord responds to Paul, He says, "My grace is sufficient for you, for power is perfected in weakness." Then Paul declares that he would "boast" about his weakness, "so that the power of Christ may dwell in me." In verse 10, he says that he would be content with difficulties "for Christ’s sake." The most natural reading, then, is that the Lord whom Paul addressed is Christ.

Some concede that this is Christ, but argue that the special circumstances allowed Paul to address Jesus. Paul was an apostle; and Christ did directly respond to Paul. But, just as was pointed out with Stephen, if the practice was wrong to engage in, why would the special circumstances make it right? Further, if Christ and the apostles did not intend to leave the impression that it was right to do, why is the whole scenario giving the impression that there is no problem with what Paul did?

5. Acts 1:24. The disciples prayed to the Lord concerning the question over whom would take the place of Judas. Once again, the context suggests that this is Christ because it refers to the one "You have chosen" to replace Judas. Since it was Jesus’ place to choose the apostles (cf. John 15:19), it follows that this is Jesus whom they are addressing.

6. 1 John 5:13-15. Verses 14-15 tell us that we may have confidence in the requests which we have asked "from Him." I believe the "Him," in this context, is Jesus. Verse 13 speaks of believing "in the name of the Son of God." Earlier, the Son of God is the subject of much of the discussion. The natural reading, again, is that when it refers to the prayers and request we ask "from Him," the "Him" is Jesus. The Father is also in the context, but the immediate context of verses 14-15 is more closely associated with Jesus.

7. Revelation 22:20. This passage directly refers to Jesus. John simply said, "Amen. Come, Lord Jesus." There is no question that Jesus is addressed. The only objection that can be made is the "special circumstance" problem. But this objection has the same short-comings as in other places.

Other Considerations

Some further considerations are in order.

1. More on the "Special Circumstance" Objection. We have referred to this several. It seems to be the only valid objection to most of the passages cited. I say "valid" because it is a consideration when we study the Scriptures. We need to make sure that we do not extend the meaning of passages beyond their intended scope. When the circumstances limit an application, then we should be careful about going beyond that. But in this particular issue, we are dealing with the rightness or wrongness of an activity, not with the question of how far the application of a promise or statement goes. There is a difference, for example, between the question of the scope of the promises of John 14-16 (limited to the apostles) and the scope of an activity in which we can engage. Prayer is an authorized activity not limited to any particular age. And there is nothing in the passages that indicated that certain men could address Jesus in the first century, but after that no one else may do so. There are no limiting statements attached to the examples and passages cited. Thus one may conclude that the activities engaged in by approved examples are not limited to a particular age, as would be the case with the working of miracles (which we could not do on our own anyway). Further, if the action of addressing Jesus is a sin, why would it not be sinful to certain men (not just apostles), but it is sinful to others? Special circumstances do not make an inherently sinful practice right.

2. John 16:23. Some have used this verse to say that Jesus forbids addressing Him in prayer. However, the context of this passage does not support the use of the verse in this way. Jesus said, "in that day you will not question Me about anything. Truly, truly, I say to you, if you ask the Father for anything in My name, He will give it to you." We are told that Jesus forbids asking Him for anything, and commands that all such requests are to be made to the Father. But what does Jesus mean by the phrase, "in that day, you will not question Me about anything"? The disciples were grieved over many of the things Jesus had taught them, and they were questioning Him about His teachings because much of it was in figurative language (vs. 25). But, Jesus said a time was coming in which He would speak more plainly. This is "that day." The disciples then said that Jesus was speaking plainly, and then affirmed, "Now we know that You know all things, and have no need for anyone to question You" (vs. 30). This is the idea in the statement that they would not ask or question Him. It does not refer to prayers of request; it refers to their questioning Him about His figurative teaching. It does not forbid making requests of Jesus.

As to the teaching of Jesus that we should ask of the Father in His name, all of this is completely right and true. We must do this. But this does not negate the authorization of addressing Jesus also. It is not an either/or proposition.

Conclusion

There are many other thoughts that could be added. For example, we might consider any inferences that may be involved in the fact that Jesus is God, High Priest, Advocate, Savior, King, Head, Intercessor, etc. It just seems inconceivable that we are forbidden to address Jesus, considering His role and position, and our relationship to Him. It does not fit the various passages we cited or the role in which He serves. Draw near to Jesus, but don’t dare talk to Him!? Jesus is our Head, but we can’t communicate to Him directly!? Jesus is our Advocate and Intercessor, but He can only listen in on conversations with the Father?! Does any of this make sense? Not to me.

In our relationship to Him, He is able to aid us in our temptations (Heb. 2:18). But in order to receive this aid, we are to "draw near with confidence to the throne of grace" (Heb. 4:15-16). Jesus aids us in time of need. Can we not approach Him in such time?

We have shown several passages, and considered some of the objections, relating to the question of the propriety of addressing Jesus. The Scriptures authorize the activity through statements and approved examples; and there is no objection which consistently holds up. Again, none of this is to say that we should do this instead of addressing the Father. I am only affirming that addressing Jesus is authorized; and that we may derive great benefit in doing so. Jesus is worthy of our honor and praise (cf. John 5:23).

Doy Moyer