“Whatever you ask in my name, this I will do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you ask me anything in my name, I will do it” (John 14:13–14). The glory of God himself is at stake in our prayers (even our seemingly small or insignificant prayers), and God will not surrender or violate his glory. That means no prayer is insignificant to God. He will answer your prayers in Jesus’s name because he’s fiercely devoted, with all his sovereign might, to the exalting of that name. For God to disregard requests made in the name of Jesus would be to abandon his reason for creating the universe: his glory. Our prayers, then, aren’t just in the name of Jesus, but for the name of Jesus.

As a child, I had an unhealthy fear of voicemails.
Since voicemails now are something of an endangered species, this may require some explanation. When I was in school, most phones were still attached to walls and didn’t have caller ID. So, if you called and no one picked up, no one would know that it was you who called — unless you left a voicemail. Seems easy (and safe) enough, right?
One day (I was probably ten), I called to see if a friend across the street wanted to play, but no one picked up. I hung up. A few minutes later, I called again. No answer, I hung up. I did this a few more times over the next hour. My mom noticed my strange behavior and asked what I was doing.
“I was just calling to see if my friend wanted to play, but no one’s home.”
“Well, why don’t you just leave a message?”
I tensed up. “Oh no, no. . . . I’ll just try again in a few minutes.”
“No, Marshall, that’s rude to keep calling like that. You really should leave a voicemail.”
“No, really, Mom, it’s not a big deal. They don’t mind.”
“No,” she said firmly, “you’re going to pick up that phone right now and leave a voicemail.”
I waited to see if she was serious, then slowly lifted the instrument of terror from the wall. There was something about being recorded — with no opportunity to delete, or try again, or call timeout — that made me feel exposed. It certainly didn’t help that my (female) friend could be a bit of a bully and relished just about any opportunity to laugh at my expense.
Again, no one answered. The dreaded beep came. My mom stared at me intently. “Hi, uhhh, Jenna. . . . This is Marshall. Umm . . . just wanted to see if you were home and wanted to play. So . . . give me a call when you get back. . . . Umm . . . in Jesus’s name, Amen.”
My mom’s eyes widened, and she covered her mouth. Her cheeks strained to fight back laughter. My young, insecure blood boiled. She made me do that. How could she!
It’s funny, but my (tiny) humiliation plays out a common paradox in prayer: Those three words — in Jesus’s name — were already so deeply ingrained in my mind through countless prayers in our home that they instinctively poured out. At the same time, they had become so familiar that they had begun to lose their weight and meaning (so that I blurted them to the 10-year-old girl across the street). Many of us have forgotten, through lots of meals and bedtimes, services and Bible studies, what we hold in these three staggering words: in Jesus’s name.
Six Facets in the Name
Where do we learn to pray in Jesus’s name, anyway? The Lord’s Prayer doesn’t end that way. In fact, when you go looking, you realize that we don’t have any actual prayers in Scripture that end with those words.
We hear people baptize in the name of Jesus (Acts 2:38), heal in the name of Jesus (Acts 3:6), teach in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:18), exorcise demons in the name of Jesus (Acts 16:18), and perform wonders in the name of Jesus (Acts 4:30). The apostle Paul goes as far to tell us to do everything we do, in word or deed, “in the name of the Lord Jesus” (Colossians 3:17). The clearest teaching on praying in Jesus’s name, though, comes from Jesus himself, on the night he was betrayed.
In John 14–16, we have Jesus’s last words to his disciples before he goes to the cross, and in all three chapters he mentions the power of praying in his name: “Whatever you ask in my name” (John 14:13) . . . “Whatever you ask the Father in my name” (John 15:16) . . . . “Whatever you ask of the Father in my name” (John 16:23). In the repetition, we see how critical this kind of prayer will be for followers of Jesus, and we learn at least six reasons for Christians to pray in his name.
1. Access: God Listens to You
When we pray in Jesus’s name, we rehearse our only reason for believing God will actually hear our prayers. We dare to bow before the Father only because the Son chose to bow upon the cross. Before he encourages his disciples to pray this way, Jesus says to them, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me” (John 14:6). No one comes except in me — but everyone who comes in my name will be received, heard, and loved. His life, cross, and resurrection lift our prayers into heaven.
Jesus goes as far as to say (really listen to what he says here), “I do not say to you that I will ask the Father on your behalf; for the Father himself loves you, because you have loved me and have believed that I came from God” (John 16:26–27). In other words, I don’t have to ask him anything for you anymore. No, in me, you can ask the Almighty yourself.
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by Grover E. Gunn |
Thursday, February 10, 2022
My main point in quoting this journal entry is to provide evidence that Charles Hodge did not regard every possible effort to represent Jesus in His humanity as necessarily and inherently immoral. At the same time, as evidenced by the statement in his systematic theology, Hodge recognized the temptation to abuse such representations as objects or channels of worship. I regard this as a proper balance that avoids both swallowing camels and gagging on gnats.

Charles Hodge published his greatest work, his three-volume systematic theology, in the years 1871 to 1873. He died not that long afterward in 1878. In his systematic theology, Hodge had a long section on the second commandment. He ended it with this word of caution:
No one who has ever seen any of the masterpieces of Christian art, whether of the pencil or of the chisel, and felt how hard it is to resist the impulse to “bow down to them and serve them,” can doubt the wisdom of their exclusion from places of public worship. (ST, 3:304-305)
Hodge’s statement here about the power of “the masterpieces of Christian art” may have been rooted in a personal experience that he had about forty-five years before publishing his three-volume systematic theology. During his two years of study in Europe from 1826 to 1828, he visited the gallery of paintings in the German town of Dresden. His son, A.A. Hodge, quoted from his father’s journal in the biography that he published in 1880. According to the journal, Charles Hodge first visited the Dresden gallery on Wednesday morning, August 28, 1827. He expressed disappointment with the paintings that he saw there with one exception:
The Madonna of Raphael is an exception. This was as much above, as the others were below my expectations. The infant here is wonderful; the expression of the eye belongs to no human infant, but we may well imagine such an expression in the case of our Saviour. The Virgin is the ideal of human purity and beauty; what the human frame may be when this corruption has put on incorruption, and this mortal is clothed with immortality. … on every visit I was attracted and held bound by Raphael’s Madonna. (The Life of Charles Hodge by A.A. Hodge, pp. 138-139)
The painting was probably Raphael’s Sistine Madonna, a painting commissioned by a pope for a church in Italy in 1512 and moved to Dresden in 1754.
My main point in quoting this journal entry is to provide evidence that Charles Hodge did not regard every possible effort to represent Jesus in His humanity as necessarily and inherently immoral. At the same time, as evidenced by the statement in his systematic theology, Hodge recognized the temptation to abuse such representations as objects or channels of worship. I regard this as a proper balance that avoids both swallowing camels and gagging on gnats. I do, however, have some difficulties with the journal entry that I will discuss below. I want to allow some latitude because it is a statement jotted in a journal as opposed to a carefully worded statement intended for a systematic theology.
We have good reason to believe that Charles Hodge understood the doctrines of the Westminster Standards and accepted them as true. In his youth, his mother drilled him in the Westminster Catechism, and then his family’s pastor, the Old Side Presbyterian stalwart Ashbel Green, catechized him. As a young man, Hodge graduated from Princeton College and Princeton Seminary. Then he was ordained as a Presbyterian minister. He then replied positively to the question, “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of Faith of this church, as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Holy Scriptures?” Concerning this vow, he later stated,
It is something more than ordinary falsehood, if our inward convictions do not correspond with a profession made in presence of the church, and as the condition of our receiving authority to preach the gospel. In such a case we lie not only unto man, but unto God; because such professions are of the nature of a vow, that is, a promise or profession made to God. (The Princeton Review, October, 1858, page 670)
Hodge also later stated that this vow meant that a man received every doctrine taught in the church’s doctrinal standards but not necessarily every proposition about those doctrines in the standards. Yet Hodge seemed to imply that he was one of the few who did accept every such proposition:
If the rule that no man should be allowed to exercise the ministry in our church, who did not adopt every proposition contained in the Confession of Faith, should be carried out, we verily believe we should be left almost alone. We are not sure that we personally know a dozen ministers besides ourselves, who could stand the test. (The Princeton Review, October, 1858, page 686)
Back then, there was also an additional vow for those being ordained as a professor. Hodge vowed at his ordination “not to teach anything which directly or indirectly contradicts anything taught in the Confession of Faith, Catechisms, or Form of Government in this church.” (The Princeton Review, October, 1858, pages 681)
On top of that, Princeton Seminary had its own requirements. When Hodge became a professor at Princeton Seminary, he had to affirm that he would not “inculcate, teach or insinuate any thing which shall appear … to contradict or contravene, either directly or impliedly, any thing taught” in the Westminster Standards. [Charles Hodge: The Pride of Princeton, by Andrew Hoffecker, loc 877]
We also have reason to believe that Charles Hodge accepted statements about the second commandment found in Reformed standards in addition to the Westminster Standards. When Hodge wrote about the second commandment in his systematic theology, he quoted from the Second Helvetic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism. He quoted Bullinger’s Second Helvetic Confession in Latin (ST, 3:304); here is that quotation in English as translated in Schaff’s The Creeds of Chistendom:
We do therefore reject not only the idols of the Gentiles, but also the images of Christians. For although Christ took upon him man’s nature, yet he did not therefore take it that he might set forth pattern for carvers and painters. (3:836) …
And seeing that the blessed spirits and saints in heaven, while they lived here, abhorred all worship done unto themselves, and spake against images, who can think it likely that the saints in heaven, and the angels, are delighted with their own images, whereunto men do bow their knees, uncover their heads, and give such other like honor? (3:837) …
Therefore we approve the judgment of Lactantius, an ancient writer, who says, “Undoubtedly there is no religion where there is picture.” (3:837)
And here is Hodge’s quotation from the Heidelberg Catechism:
Is it forbidden to make any images or statues? God cannot and ought not in any way to be depicted, and although it is lawful to make representations of creatures, yet God forbids that they should be worshipped, or He through them. But may not images be tolerated in the churches for the instruction of the uneducated? By no means; for it does not become us to be wiser than God, who has willed that his Church be instructed, not by dumb images, but by the preaching of his word. (ST, 3:304)
Here is Hodge’s basic teaching on images in his systematic theology:
That the second commandment does not forbid pictorial or sculptured representations of ideal or visible objects, is plain because the whole command has reference to religious worship, and because Moses, at the command of God himself, made many such images and representations. … There can therefore be no doubt that the second commandment was intended only to forbid the making or using the likeness of anything in heaven or earth as objects of worship.…
It is equally clear that the second commandment does forbid the use of images in divine worship. In other words, idolatry consists not only in the worship of false gods, but also in the worship of the true God by images. (ST, 3:290-291)
The thing thus repeatedly and solemnly forbidden as a violation of the covenant between God and the people, was the bowing down to, or using anything visible, whether a natural object as the sun or moon, or a work of art and man’s device, as an object or mode of divine worship. And in this sense the command has been understood by the people to whom it was given, from the time of Moses until now. The worship of the true God by images, in the eyes of the Hebrews, has ever been considered as much an act of idolatry as the worship of false gods. (ST, 3:292)
Hodge further clarified his understanding by contrasting his Reformed understanding with Luther’s understanding.
As the worship of images is expressly forbidden in the Scriptures, Protestants, as well Lutheran as Reformed, condemned their being made the objects of any religious homage. As, however, their use for the purposes of instruction or ornament is not thus expressly forbidden, Luther contended that such use was allowable and even desirable. He, therefore, favoured their being retained in the Churches. The Reformed, however, on account of the great abuse which had attended their introduction, insisted that they should be excluded from all places of worship.
…
 Luther was tolerant of the use of images in the churches. On this subject he says: “If the worship of images be avoided, we may use them as we do the words of Scripture, which bring things before the mind and cause us to remember them.” … In another place he says that when one reads of the passion of Christ, whether he will or not an image of a man suspended on a cross is formed in his mind just as certainly as his face is reflected when he looks into the water. There is no sin in having such an image in the mind why then should it be sinful to have it before the eyes?
The Reformed went further than this. They condemned not only the worship of images, but also their introduction into places of worship, because they were unnecessary, and because they were so liable to abuse. (ST, 3:303-304)
Hodge is clear that the Reformed, together with the Lutherans, condemn the worship of images, and that the Reformed, contrary to the Lutherans, disagree with the introduction of images into a place of public worship.
Some reading Hodge’s section on the second commandment might assume that Hodge would consider any representation of Jesus in His humanity as inherently idolatrous. I think that would be a hasty generalization. I have not found any statement in this section to justify that conclusion, and his journal note contradicts it. I acknowledge the possibility that my conclusion may also be a hasty generalization. Hodge wrote reams of material, and I have looked at only a small fraction of it.
I have found Raphael’s Sistine Madonna on the Internet, and I agree that this is a beautiful painting as a work of art. I have seen only the digital image, and I would expect the actual painting to be even more impressive. Yet I also have some problems with Hodge’s journal entry.
I find helpful some efforts to give visual expression to scenes and events graphically described in gospel narratives. I don’t have much use for a visual representation of Mary and Jesus not in an event or scene based on a gospel narrative.
Also, Hodge stated that the representation of Mary was so beautiful that he thought it more like what he imagined a glorified body would be like. In addition, Hodge said that the visual representation of the eyes of the young Jesus were too wonderful to be human eyes. This means that these visual representations were not credible representations. When Jesus was a baby, neither He nor His mother had a glorified body. Eastern Orthodox icons portray Jesus with a glorified look based on the description of the transfiguration. Some of the representations of Jesus in western Roman Catholic art give Jesus’ human nature a semi-divine look similar to the ancient Greeks’ depictions of their gods.
The Roman Catholic art of the Counter-Reformation desires to convince us that Christ is truly God’s Son. In this it is right. But it wishes to base this conviction on a representation of Christ in which the resplendence of his divine nature is seen and felt directly. In this it is wrong and misses its goal. The true mystery of the Son of God become man and abased is absent from those representations. The superman or demi-god depicted there has nothing in common with the Christ in the form of a servant. (W.A. Visser ‘T Hooft, Rembrandt and the Gospel, page 31)
I said that I wanted to give Hodge some latitude in my interpretation of his journal entry. His statement about eyes could be interpreted in terms of a monophysite mixing of the divine and human natures in the incarnation. I can’t believe that Hodge could have meant that. I am sure that he was totally committed to the truth that “two whole, perfect, and distinct natures, the Godhead and the manhood, were inseparably joined together in one person, without conversion, composition, or confusion” (WCF 8.2). Taking into account the statement about glorification and the representation of Mary, I take the reference to the eyes beyond human eyes as a reference to glorified human eyes freed from common infirmities at the time of resurrection (WLC 52). This still is not a credible representation of the Christ Child, but this interpretation does not involve a mixing of the two natures.
In his journal entry, Hodge spoke of multiple visits to this museum during which he was attracted to and held bound by this particular painting. This sounds like he may have been close to entering into temptation. Again, this experience may be the basis for the cautionary note about “masterpieces of Christian art” in his systematic theology. If something even as innocuous as a bridge illustration in a gospel tract begins to tempt us as a visual object of devotion, we need to acknowledge the temptation and avoid it.
Dr. Grover Gunn is a Minister in the Presbyterian Church in America and is pastor of MacDonald PCA in Collins, MS. This article is used with permission.
See also:
Westminster Larger Catechism Q. 109 and Representations of Deity
Peter Martyr and the Second Commandment
Zwingli and Bullinger on Pictures of Jesus
The Geneva Bible and Visual Representations of Deity
Archibald Alexander and Mental Images of Jesus 

We are told to “follow the science”. What we have witnessed far too often over the past four years is “follow the money”. Be it corrupt politicians, Big Pharma, medicos with vested interests, or globalist bodies seeking to control us all, we have seen how quickly and easily science and medicine can be corrupted and hijacked for nefarious ends.

Some of us were quite sceptical of what was being done to us in the name of Covid from very early on in the piece. Things did not seem to add up, and the hysterical media alarmism, coupled with Statist overkill via lockdowns and all the rest certainly made us wonder.
And many of us wondered out loud. We got absolutely hammered and hated on for daring to ask hard questions and query the official narrative. For simply expressing our concerns we were turned into despised pariahs and treated as the scum of the earth.
Yet increasingly we are being vindicated. Barely a day goes by when we do not learn even more about just how wrong so much of the “science” was, how dictatorial and totalitarian our governments were, and how much medical fascism was allowed to take place. Simply considering all the injuries and deaths so far with rushed and improperly tested medicines should wake us up.
All this, coupled with the clearly stated aims of individuals and groups like Schwab, Harari, Gates, the World Economic Forum and the Great Reset mob, makes it clear that we whistle-blowers and questioners were absolutely right to stick our necks out and dare to look closer at what was – and is – happening.
There are now innumerable articles and videos and plenty of books on all this. Last year I offered this list of titles.
Four recent articles that have appeared on these matters are worth drawing your attention to. The first one speaks about slodderwetenschap (the Dutch term for ‘sloppy science’). The authors say this especially occurred during the COVID-19 pandemic:
We had front-row seats to witness the media reporting claims of a breakthrough made one day, then dismissed the next. It’s one of the first occasions the public has been able to clearly see how messy the scientific process can be – when it’s done sloppily.
One of the more public facets in the swirling whirl of COVID-19 misinformation was the continuing role of Dr Anthony Fauci, the Chief Medical Officer to the President of the USA. Fauci insisted that his pronouncements of the moment, such as suggesting it would only take 15 days to slow the spread of the virus or that masks were ‘unnecessary’, were ‘science’ and as such not to be questioned. Yet, the main method of science is to question. Fauci was abusing his claims of expertise and in the process helping to erode the public’s trust in science itself.
The researchers argue that one of the drivers of sloppy science is that people find it hard to accept results that are a work in progress; they much prefer the neatness and superficial completeness that often comes with incorrect work. It can mean that shortcuts are taken – and alternatives are ignored because they cause disruption.
Results that are desired are often declared correct due to political and financial pressures or even fears. This culture involves accepting storylines that are presented without further examination (eg, Fauci’s ‘I am Science’). Naïve acceptance can cause real harm – especially when the initial claims need to be qualified or are disproved. What arose during the COVID-19 pandemic was the increasing proliferation of unsound science, which meant policy leaders – misled by misinformation – made terrible decisions with devastating ramifications. The debate about the longevity of lockdowns as a means of dealing with COVID-19 and the seemingly deliberate suppression of the role of natural immunity post-infection stand out as two prominent examples.
They close their piece by outlining seven critical mistakes where sloppy science can creep into the scientific process:
1. Jumping straight into giving explanations for unexpected observations. The impulse to be the first to obtain results makes shortcuts tempting.2. Disregarding variables that could be of importance to the research. Selecting suitable variables is critical for good science – it’s a process that should not be rushed.3. Not correctly considering the context of the experiment. For example, how the research relates to the real world.4. Inflexible modelling. For example, only using a single model instead of an open-ended model to determine outcomes.5. Making bad sampling assertions. Like applying statistical functions across populations as a whole – when they may only apply to specific subsets.6. The overuse of labelling and categorisation.
Read More
Related Posts: