Jump to content
The World News Media

Did Stephen pray to Jesus? Acts 7:59


Cos

Recommended Posts

  • Member

Did Stephen pray to Jesus? Acts 7:59

 

The Watchtower has said, “Every prayer is a form of worship.” (The Watchtower, December 15, 1994, p. 23)

 

The Watchtower, February 1, 1959 page 96 in the section ‘Questions from Readers’ says, “the PRAYER offered by Stephen when he was being martyred is recorded at Acts 7:59, 60….”

 

The Watchtower admits that this was a prayer!

 

Stephen prayed to Jesus. Stephen therefore actually worshipped Jesus! <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites


  • Views 2.5k
  • Replies 21
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Hello Mr Joyce,   Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop), although they do agree that Stephen did; but in so answering they make so

Wow! That wasn't handled very well in 1959 was it?. Although, to be fair, the dictionary does state on the term "pray":     adverb formalarchaic     1. used as a preface to polite requests or ins

However, the context and wording of the passage in the other letter - the second one to the Corinthians - strongly suggests Paul was addressing Jesus. Let's take another look: Three times I begge

  • Member
4 hours ago, Cos said:

Stephen prayed to Jesus. Stephen therefore actually worshipped Jesus!

Wow! That wasn't handled very well in 1959 was it?.

Although, to be fair, the dictionary does state on the term "pray":     adverb formalarchaic     1. used as a preface to polite requests or instructions. "ladies and gentlemen, pray be seated"

Anyway, there's a clearer explanation now, published in the Watchtower a bit later than the '94 reference:

*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Does Stephen’s exclamation at Acts 7:59 indicate that prayers should be directed to Jesus?

Acts 7:59 says: “They went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” Those words have raised questions in the mind of some, since the Bible says that Jehovah is the “Hearer of Prayer.” (Psalm 65:2) Did Stephen really pray to Jesus? Would this indicate that Jesus is the same as Jehovah?

The King James Version says that Stephen was “calling upon God.” Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry, who said: “Stephen here prays to Christ, and so must we.” However, that viewpoint is erroneous. Why?
Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: “The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.” How did the word “God” come to be inserted into that verse? Scholar Abiel Abbot Livermore called this “an instance of the sectarian biases of the translators.” Most modern translations, therefore, eliminate this spurious reference to God.

Nevertheless, many versions do say that Stephen “prayed” to Jesus. And the footnote in the New World Translation shows that the term “made appeal” can also mean “invocation; prayer.” Would that not indicate that Jesus is Almighty God? No. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting, the original Greek word, e·pi·ka·leʹo, means: “To call upon, invoke; . . . to appeal to an authority.” Paul used this same word when he declared: “I appeal to Caesar!” (Acts 25:11) Appropriately, then, The New English Bible says that Stephen “called out” to Jesus.

What prompted Stephen to make such an appeal? According to Acts 7:55, 56, Stephen, “being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” Normally, Stephen would have addressed his requests to Jehovah in the name of Jesus. But seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision, Stephen apparently felt free to appeal to him directly, saying: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Stephen knew that Jesus had been given authority to raise the dead. (John 5:27-29) He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.

Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision.—Revelation 22:16, 20.

Although Christians today properly direct all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) As it did Stephen, so faith in Jesus’ ability to raise his followers from the dead can help and sustain us in times of trial.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
1 hour ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Wow! That wasn't handled very well in 1959 was it?.

Although, to be fair, the dictionary does state on the term "pray":     adverb formalarchaic     1. used as a preface to polite requests or instructions. "ladies and gentlemen, pray be seated"

Anyway, there's a clearer explanation now, published in the Watchtower a bit later than the '94 reference:

*** w05 1/1 p. 31 Questions From Readers ***
Does Stephen’s exclamation at Acts 7:59 indicate that prayers should be directed to Jesus?

Acts 7:59 says: “They went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’” Those words have raised questions in the mind of some, since the Bible says that Jehovah is the “Hearer of Prayer.” (Psalm 65:2) Did Stephen really pray to Jesus? Would this indicate that Jesus is the same as Jehovah?

The King James Version says that Stephen was “calling upon God.” Understandably, then, many draw the conclusion reached by Bible commentator Matthew Henry, who said: “Stephen here prays to Christ, and so must we.” However, that viewpoint is erroneous. Why?
Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: “The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.” How did the word “God” come to be inserted into that verse? Scholar Abiel Abbot Livermore called this “an instance of the sectarian biases of the translators.” Most modern translations, therefore, eliminate this spurious reference to God.

Nevertheless, many versions do say that Stephen “prayed” to Jesus. And the footnote in the New World Translation shows that the term “made appeal” can also mean “invocation; prayer.” Would that not indicate that Jesus is Almighty God? No. Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting, the original Greek word, e·pi·ka·leʹo, means: “To call upon, invoke; . . . to appeal to an authority.” Paul used this same word when he declared: “I appeal to Caesar!” (Acts 25:11) Appropriately, then, The New English Bible says that Stephen “called out” to Jesus.

What prompted Stephen to make such an appeal? According to Acts 7:55, 56, Stephen, “being full of holy spirit, gazed into heaven and caught sight of God’s glory and of Jesus standing at God’s right hand.” Normally, Stephen would have addressed his requests to Jehovah in the name of Jesus. But seeing the resurrected Jesus in vision, Stephen apparently felt free to appeal to him directly, saying: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Stephen knew that Jesus had been given authority to raise the dead. (John 5:27-29) He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.

Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.” Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision.—Revelation 22:16, 20.

Although Christians today properly direct all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.” (John 11:25) As it did Stephen, so faith in Jesus’ ability to raise his followers from the dead can help and sustain us in times of trial.
 

Hello Mr Joyce,

 

Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop), although they do agree that Stephen did; but in so answering they make some interesting claims that are not altogether true.

 

First they make a statement that:

“Barnes’ Notes on the New Testament makes this honest admission: ‘The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient [manuscripts] or versions.'”

 

True, but not the whole truth, because the full quote from Barnes is as follows:

“The word God is not in the original, and should not have been in the translation. It is in none of the ancient mss. or versions. It should have been rendered, “They stoned Stephen, invoking, or calling upon, and saying, Lord Jesus,” etc. That is, he was engaged “in prayer” to the Lord Jesus. The word is used to express “prayer” in the following, among other places: 2Co_1:23, “I call God to witness”; 1Pe_1:17, “And if ye call on the Father,” etc.; Act_2:21, “whosoever shall call on the name of the Lord,” etc.; Act_9:14; Act_22:16; Rom_10:12-14. This was, therefore, an act of worship; a solemn invocation of the Lord Jesus, in the most interesting circumstances in which a man can be placed – in his dying moments. And this shows that it is right to worship the Lord Jesus, and to pray to him.(emphasis mine)

 

If they accept Barnes on the fact that God should not be in the text they should also accept Barnes when he informs us that Stephen is praying to the Lord Jesus and that Scripture indicates we can do it too. But no, they simply take the first part and ignore the rest. They then talk about the Greek word used:


“Vine’s Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words explains that in this setting the original Greek word, epikaleo, means: ‘To call upon, invoke; … to appeal to a authority.”

 

But words have been missed out from the Vine’s quote which put a different light on the issue:

 

“in the Middle Voice, to call upon for oneself (i.e., on one’s behalf), Acts 7:59

 

Clearly Stephen called upon, invoked, prayed to the Lord Jesus. The Society, albeit seemingly reluctantly admit this was happening but want to show that you cannot do it today.

 

“Does Stephen’s brief utterance set a precedent for praying to Jesus? Not at all. For one thing, Stephen clearly distinguished Jesus from Jehovah, for the account says that he saw Jesus “standing at God’s right hand.'”

 

What this has to do with praying to Jesus I am not sure. We Christians make a distinction between  God the Son and God the Father but we can still pray to Jesus in His own right.

 

Next they say:

“Also, these circumstances were exceptional. The only other case of such an utterance being directed to Jesus is that of the apostle John, who similarly addressed Jesus directly when he saw Him in vision. – Revelation 22:16,20

 

No clear reason is given as to why, if Stephen prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, and John prayed to Jesus and it was accepted, you and I cannot pray to Jesus and it will be accepted!

 

They end the article with this:

“Although Christians today direct, all their prayers to Jehovah God, they too have unshakable faith that Jesus is “the resurrection and the life.”

 

This refers back to an earlier paragraph where they stated:

“He therefore asked Jesus to safeguard his spirit, or life force, until the day when Jesus would raise him to immortal life in the heavens.”

 

Not according to other parts of the New Testament where the same Greek word, δέχομαι, is used.

 

"whom heaven must receive until the period of restoration of all things about which God spoke by the mouth of His holy prophets from ancient time." (Acts 3:21)

 

Heaven actually received Him and Jesus was in heaven.

 

"So when He came to Galilee, the Galileans received Him, having seen all the things that He did in Jerusalem at the feast; for they themselves also went to the feast." (John 4:45)

 

The Galileans actually received Jesus and He was in Galilee.

 

"Whoever does not receive you, nor heed your words, as you go out of that house or that city, shake the dust off your feet." (Matt 10:14)

 

They were literally received into the home and stayed there.

 

"By faith Rahab the harlot did not perish along with those who were disobedient, after she had welcomed (literally received) the spies in peace." (Heb 11:31)

 

Rahab actually received the spies into her home.

 

"They went on stoning Stephen as he called on the Lord and said, 'Lord Jesus, receive my spirit!'" (Acts 7:59)

 

Stephen was asking Jesus to actually receive his spirit and so he would be with Jesus in heaven; nothing to do with safeguarding for a future day.

 

There is nothing to stop us praying to Jesus, indeed the teaching is that we should be praying just as Stephen did. <><

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Did Paul pray to Jesus? 

2 Corinthians 12:7-10 - To keep me from becoming overly exalted, I was given a thorn in the flesh, an angel of Satan, to keep slapping me, so that I might not be overly exalted. Three times I begged the Lord about this, that it would depart from me.  But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness is sufficient for you, for my power is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, then, I will boast about my weaknesses, in order that the power of the Christ may remain over me like a tent.  So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

Just another thought.

The Org highlights in its QFR that 'God' was inserted into the KJV translation of Acts 7:59, thereby giving the wrong impression (in its view) that Jesus is God. However, it is also important to note that 'Jehovah' has been inserted into the NWT translation of the following verse 60 rather than keeping to the original 'Lord,' thereby similarly biasing the reader - this time into thinking Stephen was addressing the Father instead of the Son (the latter is consistent with the immediate context).

This is how the verses ought to read:

Acts 7:59, 60 - As they were stoning Stephen, he made this appeal: “Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.”  Then, kneeling down, he cried out with a strong voice: “Lord, do not charge this sin against them.” And after saying this, he fell asleep in death.
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member

WTS says John prayed to Jesus and that JWs should also:

[w07 3/15 p.3] John earnestly prayed: “Come, Lord Jesus.” (Revelation 22:20) 

And *** re chap. 44 p. 319 par. 19 Revelation and You ***19 Thus, with John, we fervently pray: “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
5 hours ago, Cos said:

Your response from the viewpoint of the Watchtower Society has to now be “no” (another flip flop)

You are doing that thing again in trying to force an answer to a polar question but never mind.

5 hours ago, Cos said:

“Barnes’ Notes

I haven't got a problem with selective quoting here as the point is to address an interpolation in the King James version. It is hardly necessary really, as the marginal references in the KJ I use indicate this anyway, and I expect this is widely recognised as an example of the doctrinal insecurity that went on at 1 Jn .5:7-8.

Thanks for setting out your position on Stephen's relationship with Jesus so clearly. It isn't one I share, but I have met it several times before as held by members of a variety of groups including Pentecostal, Evangelical, Roman Catholic, (although I recognise personal beliefs may not necessarily reflect those of the invidual's denominational identity.)

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

Did Paul pray to Jesus?

I feel no, actually. The text seems to display Paul's earlier recognition as expressed at 1Cor.1:24.

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

'Jehovah' has been inserted into the NWT translation of the following verse 60

Valid point. It could have been marginally referenced I suppose.

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

consistent with the immediate context

Not a foolproof technique, as consistency may be only apparent (erroneously).

4 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

This is how the verses ought to read

Just your opinion of course. However, I can accept such a rendering conditional on a marginal reference as mentioned, particularly as Stephen's words "“Lord, do not charge this sin against them.”  would appear to reflect what was expressed by Jesus at Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" , similarly directed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
32 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

I feel no, actually. The text seems to display Paul's earlier recognition as expressed at 1Cor.1:24.

However, the context and wording of the passage in the other letter - the second one to the Corinthians - strongly suggests Paul was addressing Jesus. Let's take another look:

Three times I begged the Lord [which Lord?] about this, that it would depart from me.  But he said to me: “My undeserved kindness [which Lord's 'undeserved kindness'? But cp. Acts 15:11; Rom. 1:7; 16:20; 2 Cor. 8:9; etc. - 'undeserved kindness' can derive from Jesus as well as from God]  is sufficient for you, for my power [which Lord's power?] is being made perfect in weakness.” Most gladly, then, I will boast about my weaknesses, in order that the power of the Christ [ahh, Paul clarifies that he means the Lord Christmay remain over me like a tent.  So I take pleasure in weaknesses, in insults, in times of need, in persecutions and difficulties, for Christ. For when I am weak, then I am powerful.

56 minutes ago, Eoin Joyce said:

Just your opinion of course. However, I can accept such a rendering conditional on a marginal reference as mentioned, particularly as Stephen's words "“Lord, do not charge this sin against them.”  would appear to reflect what was expressed by Jesus at Luke 23:34: "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing" , similarly directed.

Well, I'm of the opinion that it's the translator's job to translate what's there - not to interpolate. Yes, the NWT should have put the replacement 'Jehovah' as a footnote rather than into the main text. 

Regarding the parallel phrasing Stephen used:

Jesus cried out, "Father, into your hands I entrust my spirit." (Luke 23:46) Stephen similarly cried out, "“Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.” Seeing as Stephen was clearly addressing Jesus here, it's most natural that he'd continue addressing him when, a moment later, he says, "Lord, do not charge this sin against them."
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

it's most natural.....

3 hours ago, Ann O'Maly said:

context and wording

 

Not conclusive arguments these, because wider context demands otherwise. I believe the Bible presents Jehovah alone as the Hearer of prayer at Ps 65:2. This (for me) overrides any narrower contextual argument otherwise. I see no conflict in understanding Paul's appeal as directed to Jehovah as his Lord, and no conflict in his appreciation for Jesus role in the matter of relief. As we are considering Paul's words to Corinthians, include this: "there is actually to us one God the Father, out of whom all things are, and we for him; and there is one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things are, and we through him" 1Cor.8:6.

Jehovah's name is included at Acts 7:60 for clarity of understanding about which Lord is referenced. No more a problem than understanding Jesus's earlier reference to Ps 110:1 at Mat.22:44 and maybe asking the question: "Who was David's Lord?" (Oh dear!! Is that another WTS interpolation I see??)

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Member
3 hours ago, HollyW said:

Please explain.

Well, there is no direction in your references to pray to Jesus, and the bone of contention with most protagonists for Jesus in this role is that Jehovahs Witnesses do not.

You are usually better researched and more ordered in your arguments I thought? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites





  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Popular Contributors

  • Topics

  • Posts

    • That's completely false. You invariably attempt to weasel your way out of your false statements by claiming that someone has distorted your words. You make false claims about them and claim that they are the ones in the wrong. Then you bluster with some barely-related material hoping it impresses someone (or yourself) into thinking you are some kind of expert or authority. That barely-related material you make use of invariably says nearly the opposite of what you had claimed, which you should have known had you just read the context, or understood what you were reading.  I'll get to the specifics at a later time on this particular point, but it is nearly the same as with almost all these matters. I have learned to expect you to NEVER admit an error, no matter how much evidence is shown. I don't expect you to admit your error on these recent points, but your "style" provides a revealing display of the lengths people will go to, in order to support a pseudo-chronology.   
    • In response to your email, it is important to note that the Watchtower chronology begins at 4026, adhering closely to the numerical indications in scripture. The significant distinction lies in the fact that not everyone begins at 4026; some might commence their chronology at 4004, for instance. Consequently, this creates a noticeable gap between those who employ different starting points for their chronologies. Consider that the new Bible Students have rejected Russell's starting point and instead adjusted it to align with Modern Israel. They have suggested a year around 3954, or something like that, I can't remember, but it seems unfounded. Some of their sects started Criticizing Russell about this matter, and it appears unjustified, as their own knowledge may be limited. Following the Watchtower's guidance is straightforward: align events with their corresponding numerical values. It is important to remember that the Watchtower does not view its chronology as an absolute, unlike secular chronology which seeks to impose its perspective. According to the Watchtower, the pivotal date for the divided kingdom is 997. Look it up in our archives and publications.  The Watchtower's chronology will always diverge from conventional chronology due to its distinctive starting point. The organization holds steadfast to the numbers in the Bible, guided by faith in scripture rather than human interpretations. Despite persistent challenges, the unwavering stance of the Watchtower remains unchanged, as it is grounded in divine guidance, not the opinions of anonymous and faithless individuals.
    • Consider this: if we assume that the tablet dated back to 568 refers to Nebuchadnezzar, and that the king issued an order for Borsippa, a city 12-15 miles from Babylon, then it suggests that King Nebuchadnezzar might have been in his palace giving that order, since logically it would have taken weeks or a month or so for a runner to dispatch such an order from Judah that was for Borsippa in 588/587, as historically suggested, since we can use the same date 588/587 for that event.
    • It appears that he is struggling to accept the reality that Borsippa is approximately 15 miles away from Babylon, and depending on who you ask for directions, it is about 617 miles from Jerusalem. Therefore, if VAT 4956 mentions the death of an individual by the order of a king, in Borsippa and disease then we can reasonably assume it was Nebuchadnezzar based on the 37th year language in that secular evidence rather than the Bible, it suggests that the conflicts in the region were more extensive. This clearly demonstrates that no single conflict can be definitively determined or pinpointed solely by relying on that tablet designated to the year 568, regardless of how convincing it may appear. Making an absolute claim would be dishonest if the information contradicts itself. The same can be said if someone uses the date designation of 587/586 or 588/587. Only people who are desperate would argue that.
    • Stop behaving foolishly and distorting my words. I didn't say that the tablet mentioned 588. What I actually said is that your argument about 587 can also be interpreted as 588. The tablet clearly mentions the city of Borsippa which is way further in distance from Jerusalem, which nobody else has mentioned before, and it reveals the conflicts within it that are indicated in that infamous tablet VAT 4956, which Professor Francesca Rochberg is alluding to.    "Year 37 of Nebukadnezzar, King of Babylon. Month I," "Additional reports in this Diary include that someone was killed “by the command of the king,” that a fox entered the city, a wolf killed two dogs in Borsippa, and that there was disease." I understand that it can be challenging to be proven wrong repeatedly, especially when faced with evidence that can't be easily dismissed. "IN THIS DAIRY" means the same diary. If it's not VAT 4956 it has the same language as VAT 4956. Are you now refuting VAT 4956? Your refutation lacks substance and credibility. There are many other aspects of those dates that can be proven, failing your COJ stance.
  • Members

    • misette

      misette 213

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
    • Pudgy

      Pudgy 2,401

      Member
      Joined:
      Last active:
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Forum Statistics

    • Total Topics
      65.4k
    • Total Posts
      159.3k
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      17,679
    • Most Online
      1,592

    Newest Member
    Techredirector
    Joined
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Service Confirmation Terms of Use Privacy Policy Guidelines We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.