Did Stephen in Acts 7 Pray to Jesus or Jehovah?

In Questions from Readers, the Watch Tower Society addresses the question:

‘Does Stephen’s prayer to Jesus, as found in Acts 7:59, show that he understood Jesus to be Jehovah?’

The New World Translation gives us:

‘And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal, and said: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: ‘Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.’ And after saying this he fell asleep in death.’ vv 59,60

They put the name Jehovah in the text where the Westcott and Hort Greek text has the word Lord translating the Greek kurios. Their own Kingdom Interlinear also translates Lord. The article they use is from a 1959 Watchtower:

‘The prayer offered by Stephen when he was being martyred is recorded at Acts 7:59, 60, which says: “And they went on casting stones at Stephen as he made appeal and said: ‘Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.’ Then, bending his knees, he cried out with a strong voice: ‘Jehovah, do not charge this sin against them.’ And after saying this he fell asleep in death.” Rather than indicating that Stephen understood both Jesus and Jehovah to be the same person, his prayer shows that he knew they were not, because he differentiates between the two. His request to Jesus he does not address merely to the Lord, but to the Lord Jesus, thus doing away with any ambiguity. Further, his statement shortly prior to this, as recorded in Ac 7 verse 56, indicates two persons: “And he said: ‘Look! I behold the heavens opened up and the Son of man standing at God’s right hand.’” He does not say the Son of man, Christ Jesus, is Jehovah God, but that he was standing at God’s right hand.’ Watchtower, Fweb.1, 1959, p.96

The way they handle this question is driven, not by what the text says in the Greek, but by an anti-Trinitarian determination to deny Christ’s deity. To whom is Stephen praying? His appeal is being made to the Lord Jesus. In the 1985 edition of the Watch Tower’s own Kingdom Interlinear, a footnote to verse 59 identifies Stephen’s appeal as a ‘prayer.’ Jehovah’s Witnesses are not to pray to Jesus- see here In this linked article they write:

‘The Bible records a few occasions when faithful humans spoke to the heavenly Jesus—and sometimes to angels. (Acts 9:4, 5, 10-16; 10:3, 4; Revelation 10:8, 9; 22:20) But were those men praying to these heavenly creatures? No. In all such instances, the heavenly creatures initiated the communication. Faithful men and women reserved prayer for God alone.—Philippians 4:6.’

However, Stephen’s prayer to Jesus was initiated by Stephen, not Jesus. Perhaps that is why Acts 7 is missing from their list of examples.

In the original answer to a reader’s question, they say that Stephen redirected his prayer from Jesus to Jehovah, differentiating between the two. The sticking point is their translation of kurios as Jehovah, where even their own Interlinear, as well as better authorities translates kurios correctly as Lord. They say, ‘His request to Jesus he does not address merely to the Lord, but to the Lord Jesus, thus doing away with any ambiguity.’

The man is being brutally mattered. Is he really going to concern himself with theological niceties, or is he going to pray to the one, the only one he knows can answer? Verse 59 makes clear who Stephen is addressing, while in verse 60 Stephen continues addressing the same Lord of the Godhead. He prays to the Lord Jesus, then again prays to the Lord – it is the same Lord.

The question a Jehovah’s Witness must answer is, why does this obvious translation (not an interpretation) offend you? The answer will be, because Jesus isn’t God, but they have yet to demonstrate that he is not, and in the face of this text in which Stephen is clearly doing something Jehovah’s Witnesses are forbidden to do, praying to Jesus. I would not pray to anyone but the true and living God, and I am sure that is so for you. So, to whom is Stephen praying, and why?

There is no justification for their translating the second kurios as Jehovah, unless it is to make it fit the eisegesis of the Watch Tower Society.

Obama's mother posthumously baptized into LDS Church - Salt Lake Tribune

In the wake of his remarkable success it seemed that the world and his wife wanted to claim President Obama as their own with even an Irish connection being dug up. Now the Mormons have got in on the act by posthumously baptising his mother. They have in the past upset the Jewish community, the Catholic Church and now the American President with this wacky and unbiblical practice but there is no indication that they will review it. And, of course, it is always someone else’s fault and they promise a thorough inquiry to uncover the real culprits. Maybe they should try looking in the mirror. President Barack Obama's mother, Stanley Ann Dunham, who died in 1995, was baptized posthumously into The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints last year during her son's campaign, according to Salt Lake City-based researcher Helen Radkey. The ritual, known as “baptism for the dead,” was done June 4 in the Provo temple, and another LDS temple rite, known as the “endowment,” was...

Mormon Christians? Whats in a Name?

The Mormon Church, disturbed by the continuing identifying of polygamus sects in the news with the name Mormon, recently issued a press statement aimed at "clarifying" issues. It is interesting to note that if you substitute the name "Christian" where they use the name "Mormon" it makes a very good argument for us against the claims of the Mormon Church. The full press release is reproduced below in italics with each paragraph rewritten in ordinary text to present it from a Christian perspective. SALT LAKE CITY 10 July 2008 On 26 June, Newsroom published a package of information featuring profiles of ordinary Latter-day Saints in Texas. With no other intention but to define themselves, these members provided a tangible depiction of what their faith is all about. They serve as the best distinction between the lifestyles and values of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and a Texas-based polygamous group that has recently attracted media attent...

Is atheism an intolerant belief?

The Big Questions , Sunday 2 August 2009, third question. A growing number of Britons say they are certain there is no God - but how do they know? Professor John Adams of the North Yorkshire Humanist Association begins by asking theists what evidence they have for their beliefs. Paul Woolley of Theos continues by pointing out Richard Dawkins description of faith as a 'virus', and the appalling track record of atheism in the 20th Century, as spearheaded by Pol Pot and Stalin. Chloe Clifford-Frith of the Humanist and Secular Students Society contends that Stalin did not do the things he did because he was an atheist, but because he was evil. Paul Woolley rejoins that atheists are trying to have it both ways when they claim that religion is the cause of evil, but refuse to acknowledge the ideological impetus of atheism when it comes to many evil acts. Mao and Stalin both replaced God with the State - a 'religious' manoeuvre. Rev Alistair Rycroft of St Michael Le Belfrey Ch...

Bridge of Reason

Search This Blog