Hi All,
My question stems from the perspective of whether we as Christians see any biblical evidence of praying to Jesus and to what extent and what fashion.
Often Catholics are chastised for praying to the saints with the practice seemly not common or demonstrated in the NT. How does this compare to the practice of praying to Jesus?
Thank you and many blessings.
Doolin
That is doubtful, because the function of Jesus was not to be prayed to by Christians, but to pray for Christians. It’s possible that some passsages in the NT can be interpreted as indirect evidence of prayer to Jesus (some of the fourth gospel comes to mind); but even if they are, it does not follow that all Christians regarded Jesus as an object of Divine worship. In Revelation 1 & in Hebrews, he is a priest: this does not mean he is not a Divine person (to use later terms), but it does allow that he might not have been seen as such by the authors of those texts. The doxologies mentioning Father, son, & holy spirit point to theologies which conceived of all three as being equal - in what sense equal, is another matter.
In the NT, God = the Father of Jesus. Some of the vocabulary in the gospels - such as the use of the word proskynésis - suggests that Jesus is being given Divine honours. In itself, the word can be taken in a non-theological sense, to mean a gesture of profound respect. It is quite likely that in some passages it is to be understood in both senses, for this reason: a non-Christian reader of the gospels (and there were some) might take the word in one way, while a Christian, knowing what Jesus was, might take it in another. One of the leading themes of the NT, especially noticeable in the gospels, is the hiddenness of the identity of Jesus, & the ambiguity of the words used to speak of him would be consistent with this theme: his identity is revealed by the Father: it is not accessible in any other way; so only Jesus’s followers would understand who he is (which is why Matt. 16 & Mark. 4.11,12 & many other passages, are so significant).
Another way in which the identity is hinted at, is the use of OT motifs for him. The Ascension-narrative, for instance: “…a cloud received him from their sight”. In the OT, clouds are often:
- seen as the chariot of JHWH
- thought of as the cherubim-attendants of JHWH
- a reminder that JHWH has attributes of the storm-god
- a symbol of the Divine Glory
They are full of theological significance - they are not “merely” weather phenomena in such passages; they are associated with the creation & exodus as well.
In the NT, they are associated with the “son of man”, partly because of Daniel 7.10-13; & that passage is echoed at the trial of Jesus in Mark 14.61-2. The storm at the Passion is probably to be understood as a revelation of what Jesus is - God in the OT appears in the storm, so they may well be a connection of meaning.
The gospels - especially the first three - disclose who Jesus is
indirectly; they don’t say, Jesus is God. That would not make sense; it would amount to saying, Jesus is the Father. This is why the use of OT passages is so interesting: he can be presented as doing what the OT god does, without being spoken of in a way which would cause confusion - he is presented as like the Father, without his being identified with the Father. The OT God walks on the sea - so does Jesus. The OT God is asked to “rend the heavens and come down” (Isaiah 64) - the Jesus of John does exactly that. So the evangelists avoid the problem of over-identification very elegantly
The Ascension is worth reading with Psalm 132 in mind; for Luke, Jesus is the Ark, who goes up to the Temple of God surrounded and enthroned on the cherubim-cloud (compare Psalm 18). A lot is missed if the OT background to passages about Jesus are overlooked
Does this mean that Jesus is - to use the language of later theology - a Divine person ? Maybe - but it need not. It was possible for Judaism in his time and after to go very far in lessening the distance between God & creatures: in the second century AD, the Third Book of Enoch goes as far as including the Tetragrammaton in the names of the angels - which is absolutely astounding. Before this, Jesus is called Kurios, which is the translation in the Greek OT of the Divine Name: but while this is consistent with the possibility that Jesus is designated by a Divine title & is to be iunderstood as being a “Divine Person”, it is possible that he is identified with God in purpose & not in person. The Christology of Hebrews is very high - but it is still possible that Jesus is thought of as the very highest of all creatures, without being understood to be a Divine Person in the familar sense of the phrase. Positions such as Subordinationism, Arianism & Adoptionism were possible because the NT can be read in that way - that does not make them right, nor does it make them wrong. The variety of ideas before Nicea I is evidence of how open the text was to understandings of Jesus that were less than Nicene; as does the strength of Arianism afterwards.
Sorry about the length - hope that helps.
