To Whom Should We Pray?

To whom should we pray? Scripture consistently points to God the Father, with Jesus as our mediator (not the recipient).

By Richard Morgan

Read Time: 13 minutes

Prayer lies at the very heart of the Christian life. Yet one of the most basic questions concerning prayer is seldom examined carefully: To whom should prayer be directed?

Among Christadelphians, the traditional answer has been clear: prayer is directed to God, the Father, through the Lord Jesus Christ. This conviction reflects the teaching of Jesus himself and the practice of the apostles, and is something that our community has understood since its inception.

In recent years, however, many Christadelphians have assumed that because Jesus is now exalted and possesses divine authority, prayer may properly be addressed to him. This assumption often rests upon later theological developments rather than careful attention to the New Testament.

This article will argue that:

1. Jesus taught prayer to be directed to God.
2. The apostles prayed to God, not to Jesus.
3. Christ’s exaltation did not alter the direction of prayer.
4. The New Testament preserves a deliberate mediation framework.
5. Prayer to Jesus emerges gradually in post-apostolic Christianity.

Far from diminishing the Lord Jesus Christ, this model preserves the very purpose of his mission: to bring humanity back to God.

Jesus Taught Prayer to be Directed to God

Jesus establishes the foundation: “When you pray, say: Father, hallowed be your name.” (Luke 11:2).¹

In the Lord’s prayer, Jesus teaches us that prayer is directed to the Father concerning God’s name, Kingdom, and will. Jesus did not invite his disciples to pray to him as well as God, and this was true after his ascension: “In that day you will ask nothing of me. Truly, truly, I say to you, whatever you ask of the Father in my name… you will ask in my name, and I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf.” (John 16:23-27).

The disciples had walked with Jesus and asked him many things during his ministry. That would come to an end because he was leaving them to be by his father’s side. Jesus emphatically tells them that they will no longer ask him but must ask the Father instead.

Earlier in John, Jesus said, “If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:14), which seems to contradict his words in chapter 16. However, the word “me” is not found in earlier manuscripts. The reading without “me” is supported by:

• Codex Vaticanus
• Codex Sinaiticus (original hand)
• Several early minuscules
• Some early versions

The reading with “me” appears in:

• Later Byzantine manuscripts
• Some Alexandrian witnesses
• Later church usage

Modern critical editions (NA28, UBS5) retain “me” but with textual doubt, and many scholars openly acknowledge that this is a problematic variant. Bruce Metzger comments that the inclusion of “me” is “A difficult reading that may have arisen from scribal assimilation to v.13 or to later devotional usage.”² In other words, the phrase “ask me” likely entered the text under the influence of later prayer practice.

Apostolic Practice: Prayer Directed to God

The apostolic record is consistent: “They lifted up their voice to God.” (Acts 4:24). “I bow my knees before the Father.” (Ephesians 3:14). “We give thanks to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Colossians 1:3).

However, some ascertain that there are several examples in the Acts of the Apostles of praying to Jesus. For instance: “And they prayed and said, ‘You, Lord, who know the hearts of all, show which one of these two you have chosen to take the place in this ministry and apostleship from which Judas turned aside to go to his own place.’” (Acts 1:24-25).

They pray to the “Lord” and describe him as a knower of hearts and one who chooses apostles. The claim is made that this must be Jesus because Jesus chose the apostles. But that assumption is not as obvious as it sounds, and it is where context becomes critical.

When Jesus chose his disciples, he first prayed to God (Luke 6:12-13). This fact is very important: the sequence is Jesus prays to God, then Jesus chooses. In other words, the choice flows from God’s will, discerned through prayer. Jesus is acting as the agent of God’s choice, not an autonomous selector (John 12:49).

One of the apostles, Peter, acknowledged that it was God who was the initial chooser: “Brothers, you know that in the early days God made a choice among you, that by my mouth the Gentiles should hear the word of the gospel and believe.” (Acts 15:7).

Peter references the call of Cornelius when “the Spirit said to him… Rise and go down and accompany them without hesitation, for I have sent them.” (Acts 10:19-20). Notice too in the context that Peter prayed and conversed with “the Lord.” (Acts 10:9-15). He ascribes the situation to God directing him to call out to the Gentiles. Whatever role Jesus had, it was ultimately God who made the choice, and Peter understood this.

When the apostles said the Lord “knows the hearts,” they were invoking Jewish prayer language, which is used only of Yahweh in temple prayers and covenant contexts (Jeremiah 17:10; Psalm 44:21). It is never a way of addressing the Messiah.

Roberts notes: “The title ‘knower of hearts’ is everywhere in Scripture a designation of God Himself, and never of Christ apart from God.”³ Luke’s own usage elsewhere confirms this. Later, he records: “And God, who knows the heart, bore witness to them.” (Acts 15:8). This statement is by the same author, using the same phrase, and ascribing it here unambiguously to God.

Aside from this, remember that Jesus expressly told them not to ask anything of him, but only of God. Their whole experience in prayer was to God; Jesus had instructed them to pray to God, and not to him. Are we then to believe that they discarded this instruction and prayed to Jesus anyway? In casting lots, they were also following clear Old Testament procedure for divine guidance:  “The lot is cast into the lap, but its every decision is from the LORD.” (Proverbs 16:33). 

If they believed Jesus was the proper recipient of prayer (against his clear teaching) and the one who decides by lots, this would be the only such example and completely disconnected from Jewish practice. But Luke is consciously narrating this as God restoring the twelve before Pentecost.

Luke often uses “Lord” deliberately ambiguously, assigning it to both God and Jesus throughout Acts, because it allows continuity between Yahweh and the risen Jesus without collapsing them. But ambiguity does not mean equality of reference. In fact, Luke consistently resolves “Lord” by context, titles, functions, and descriptions. In this passage in Acts 1:

• “Knower of hearts” → God
• Casting lots → God
• Covenant restoration → God
• Parallel usage in Acts 15:8 → God

So, although “Lord” could grammatically mean Jesus, everything in this passage pushes strongly towards God as the addressee.

Even if someone were to concede that this was a prayer to Jesus, it would still be the only clear corporate prayer to Jesus before Pentecost, before the outpouring of the spirit, and before normal church life began, which already makes it exceptional, transitional, and non-normative. It would be a functional petition to the exalted agent of God, but would not establish worship, devotional, or communal prayer. Suffice it to say, all the evidence thus far is that Jesus instructed his apostles to pray to God and not to him, and the language of the prayer in Acts 1 points to the “Lord” being God.

Christ as Mediator and High Priest

The Book of Hebrews highlights for us that Jesus is our Mediator and High Priest. In Scripture, the whole priestly system presupposes that prayer is offered to God, not to the priest. In Israel, the people did not pray to the high priest, but he did mediate prayer to God.

The incense imagery in Revelation and Hebrews preserves this logic: “Another angel… was given much incense to offer with the prayers of all the saints on the golden altar before the throne.” (Revelation 8:3). The prayers are to the throne, not to an angel, not to the priest. The New Testament explicitly frames Jesus in this role: “Through him we have access in one Spirit to the Father.” (Ephesians 2:18). “He always lives to make intercession for them.” (Hebrews 7:25).

Intercession only makes sense if someone else is receiving prayer, and that someone is God. Jesus’s role is not that of a prayer recipient but that of a priestly mediator. This idea aligns perfectly with the following verse written in the context of giving prayer: “For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” (1 Timothy 2:5). The very grammar itself precludes Jesus from being the recipient. God is the recipient, Jesus is the mediator, and we are the petitioners. If Jesus were also the recipient, the structure collapses.

Jesus’ Religion

Jesus’ own religious life was radically God-centered, and he prays constantly to God, about God, and for God’s will. Never once does Jesus suggest “in the future, pray to me.” Instead, he says, “I am the way…to the Father.” (John 14:6). Jesus does not say “I am the destination” but “I am the way.” If our religion becomes Jesus-centered in a way Jesus himself never modeled, we have subtly departed from Jesus’s own theology.

Authority Does Not Equal Prayer Recipient

Just before his ascension, Jesus told his disciples, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.” (Matthew 28:18). It has been asserted that this means that prayer can now be offered to Christ.

Jesus’ authority is delegated, derived, and not intrinsic. In the Bible, kings were given authority, as were judges and angels, but none of them became prayer recipients. Even Moses, through whom God worked mightily, never became an object of prayer. Authority establishes role, function, and mediation, not worship in the sense that God is to be worshiped. As Paul writes: “God highly exalted him… that every knee should bow… to the glory of God the Father.” (Philippians 2:9-11). Even homage to Jesus is to the glory of God the Father and does not terminate in Jesus. Jesus remains the means by which God is glorified, not the final object.

God has indeed given authority to Jesus, and we find evidence of his use of that authority, for instance, in the Book of Revelation. But we do not find that accompanied by prayer to Jesus. In fact, in the context of the Lamb accompanying God on his throne and receiving worship (Revelation 5:1-14) the prayer of the saints is “O Sovereign Lord, holy and true, how long before you will judge and avenge our blood.” (Revelation  6:10). The phrase “Sovereign Lord” is translated from the Greek word despotes and is used elsewhere as a title for God and not Christ. In fact, it is used in prayer offered to God when the apostles “They lifted their voices together to God and said, ‘Sovereign Lord, who made the heaven and the earth.’” (Acts 4:24).

Jesus being given authority clearly teaches that Jesus is exalted, authorized, governs the apostolic mission, and is Lord over creation. But it does not teach that Jesus becomes God or a prayer recipient, that prayer direction changes, or that mediation ends. Jesus receives authority not to replace God but to restore God’s rule, to reconcile humanity to God, to bring creation back to God, and ultimately to hand the Kingdom back to God.

Christianity’s Shift Towards Jesus-Centered Prayer

We can watch theology change as we move from the New Testament into the post-apostolic church. What we see is not a sudden doctrinal declaration, but a gradual devotional drift driven by three pressures:

1. Loss of Jewish monotheistic instincts.
2. Growing exaltation of Christ in worship language.
3. Philosophical re-framing of divine mediation.
   

In the New Testament, prayer is overwhelmingly to God the Father. Jesus is the mediator, intercessor, and high priest. Jesus is addressed rarely and only exceptionally (e.g., when Stephen saw him), and there is no instruction to pray to Jesus. Even in the exalted Christology found in books like Philippians, Colossians, and Hebrews, no new prayer pattern emerges. This consistent message tells us something significant: High Christology does not automatically generate Jesus-directed prayer. So, when prayer patterns changed later in Christian communities, the cause is not simply “believing more about Jesus.” Something else happened over time.

The Didache is one of the earliest church manuals and says: “We thank you, our Father, for the holy vine of David your servant, which you made known to us through Jesus your servant.”⁴ The recipient of prayer here is God, and Jesus is his servant, or agent.

Clement wrote his first epistle at the end of the first century, and a long prayer appears in chapters 59-61. It is entirely addressed to God the Creator using the words “Sovereign,” “Lord of hosts,” and “Maker of heaven and earth.” Jesus is mentioned but not addressed, and prayer remains God-centered.

A little while later, we see a subtle shift in the writings, which had a very high Christology (theology that began to see Christ as deity). He calls Jesus “our God” in a few rhetorical places and speaks lavishly of Christ. However, when he talks about prayer, he still says things like: “Pray continually for the rest of mankind… to God.”⁵ Devotion is intensifying, but prayer direction is still to God.

The second century saw a shift toward invoking Christ alongside prayer to God. Justin Martyr, for instance, introduced a dual address formula: “But both Him, and the Son (who came forth from Him and taught us these things, and the host of the other good angels who follow and are made like to Him), and the prophetic Spirit, we worship and adore.”⁶ He speaks of invoking Christ and calling on his name. However, Justin still maintained the Father’s supremacy and the Son’s subordination. Something had changed, however, and Justin was now thinking in Middle Platonic categories (a philosophical framework that emphasized a highly transcendent, distant supreme God and a secondary divine intermediary through whom the world was created and governed). God was seen as transcendent and remote, and Christ, the Logos, as the visible, accessible divine agent. If God is increasingly seen as too transcendent to approach directly, then Christ becomes the natural devotional focus. This development is not Biblical logic but philosophical pressure.

By the middle of the second century, we begin to see short invocations to Jesus, doxologies including Jesus and hymnic prayer language directed to Jesus. But still, formal prayers were usually addressed to the Father, and Jesus was invoked as helper, savior, and protector. This is the stage where Jesus is not yet the primary recipient, but now becomes an acceptable secondary recipient. This formula is the decisive break from the apostolic norm.

Origen, writing in the early third century, explicitly rejects prayer to Christ. In his treatise On Prayer, he insists: “He does not teach men to pray to Himself but to the Father.”⁷ He continues: “It remains, accordingly, to pray to God alone, the Father of All, not however apart from the High Priest.”⁸ For Origen, even a pre-existent, exalted Logos remains mediator, not recipient. Prayer belongs to the one to whom Christ himself prays.

But in practice, Origen allowed invocation of Christ and addressing him in specific contexts. The shift becomes clearer in the mid-third century, when Christ was addressed directly in prayers, called upon as a divine protector, and made central to the liturgy. At the same time, God is often called “Father of our Lord” rather than simply “God,” and the devotional center was moving. This shift coincides exactly with the development of Logos theology, increasingly ontological Christology (that is, viewing Christ not merely as God’s appointed agent, but as sharing in the very being or essence of God), and the decline of Jewish monotheistic categories. Christ ceased to be primarily the mediator and became the object of prayer.

It was during the full development of the Trinity after the councils of Nicaea (AD 325) and Constantinople (AD 381) that the Son was given full ontological equality and unity of essence with the Father. Now, prayer to Jesus became not only permitted but theologically required. If Jesus was fully God and equal in essence, then withholding prayer from him looked like a denial of divinity. So, prayer practice was now used to enforce doctrine. At this stage, Trinitarian liturgies became standard, doxologies regularly ended with “Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,” and Jesus became the central devotional figure. Instead of going to God through Christ, we now have to go to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.

What Forced the Change?

Let’s summarize the actual forces behind the change, because this is where the history becomes very revealing.

The apostles were Jews, trained in strict prayer discipline, and deeply shaped by Old Testament monotheism. The second and third-century generations, on the other hand, were mostly Gentile, philosophically trained, and less sensitive to prayer direction. Once Old Testament monotheism’s instinct weakens, prayer boundaries loosen.

The New Testament exalts Christ enormously but carefully preserves God as ultimate and Christ as agent. Later, Christians kept the exaltation but lost the agency framework. Once the agency collapses, exaltation naturally turns into a redirection of prayer.

Also, as God becomes more abstract, more impassible, and more metaphysically remote, Christ becomes the approachable divine face, the experiential focus, and the devotional center. However, this is not biblical development; it is Platonic influence.

Once hymns, prayers, and doxologies address Christ, practice shapes belief, and belief reshapes doctrine. Eventually, people no longer ask, “Should we pray to Jesus?” They assume it and construct doctrine to justify it.

Conclusion

There is no evidence that Jesus taught people to pray to him. In fact, the opposite is true—Jesus expressly told his disciples not to ask him anything once he ascended to heaven.

The New Testament presents Jesus as the one who leads us to God. He opens access to God. He restored God-centered worship. Post-apostolic Christianity gradually did the opposite by placing Jesus where Jesus himself always put God. In other words, Jesus’s mission was to restore theocentric worship, but later Christianity developed Christocentric worship. Not because Jesus taught it, but because they slowly lost the agency and mediation logic Jesus did teach.

Richard Morgan,
Simi Hills Ecclesia, CA