The Approach to Prayer

Eph. 3:14‑15

For this cause I bow my knees unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Of Whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

The second thrust of Paul’s prayer is the Approach to prayer. How are we to approach this sacred thing called prayer? Verses 14 and 15 give us three marvelous principles on how we are to approach prayer: the reason for prayer, the posture of prayer, and the object of prayer.

I. The Reason For Prayer (v. 14a)

For this cause

We find the reason for prayer in the words, For this cause or “For this reason.” The average person views prayer as the avenue through which we get things from God. What a terrible view of prayer that is! To get to the heart of the matter, let us look at two questions.

First, why did Paul pray? Recall that the words For this cause appear back in verse 1. Paul was going to say there what he is about to say here. But the Holy Spirit interrupted and lead him to write more about the mystery. He now returns to his original thought, For this reason I bow my knees.

Why then did Paul pray? The reason is found back in chapter 2: He was praying because we were once aliens, now citizens; we were once slaves, now free; we were once outcasts, now family‑members. So, Paul’s reason for praying was that all believers would USE the power that their position in Christ provides. Looking at all the position, possessions, and power that the believer has in Christ, Paul prays that we will use it, that we will apply it, that we will live out the realities we have in Christ.

Second, why do we pray? Do we pray just to get something? Do we pray only when we need something or only when we are in trouble or distress? There is nothing wrong with any of this unless these are the only reasons we pray. This takes us back to the thought in our last chapter of praying for spiritual realities, not just physical needs. Is the underlying reason for our prayer that we will use the position, possessions, and power that our salvation in Christ provides? Do we pray this for other believers? Are our goals and motives for prayer ultimately spiritual? If not, we are praying for the wrong reason.

II. The Posture of Prayer (v. 14b)

I bow my knees

There is no prescribed posture for prayer in the Scripture. Of course, there are many who insist that one posture is better than all others. Some say to really pray effectively, one must be kneeling. Others say we should stand with the head bowed and eyes closed. Still others maintain that to speak with God one should either stand or sit while looking toward heaven, perhaps with the arms stretched outward or upward. It’s odd, however, that disagreement exists here at all because the Word of God tells of many postures for prayer. Abraham stood before the Lord as he interceded for Sodom and Gomorrah (Gen. 18:22). David sat before the Lord as he prayed about the building of the temple (I Chron. 17:16). Jesus fell on His face and prayed in the garden of Gethsemane (Matt. 26:39).

So why did Paul mention knelling here? He undoubtedly did so because of what knelling pictures. It was actually not customary for Jews to kneel in prayer. The normal posture was standing, just as Jews do today as they rock back and forth and intone their prayers before the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem. Kneeling, in fact, indicated an extraordinary event or an unusual passion. King Solomon, for example, knelt on a wooden platform before all the people when he prayed at the dedication of the Temple, lifting his hands to Heaven in prayer (II Chron. 6:13). Likewise, Paul knelt in prayer with the Ephesian elders when he made his emotional farewell to them (Acts 20:36–38).

There are, therefore, at least three pictures that kneeling paints. First, kneeling pictures reverence. The Psalmist writes, “Oh, come, let us worship and bow down; let us kneel before the Lord our maker” (Ps. 95:6). Second, kneeling pictures submission. When Solomon dedicated the temple (II Chron. 6), his kneeling in prayer was not only out of worship but submission to God’s will and judgments. Third, kneeling pictures burden and passion. With great burden Ezra fell on his knees before the Lord because of the intermarriage of the Israelites and their pagan neighbors (Ez. 9:5‑6). So, Paul knelt and emphasized kneeling for at least three reasons: 1. Reverence for all God had done; 2. Submission to God’s will as he sat in prison; 3. Burden for the people to whom he was writing. That last reason seems especially significant here. Paul had a special burden for the people to whom he ministered; he passionately prayed that they would understand these principles, embrace them, and apply them. This should likewise be the burden of every pastor in our day.

Christianity today could do with a lot more kneeling. We should not kneel out of ritual and formalism; this makes the act meaningless. Rather, kneeling is between each believer and God. We will not kneel every time we pray since because prayer is “constant communion,” we would be walking around on our knees all day. But when there is a need to kneel, God will show that to us.

Most important, however, attitude is much more important than posture. The poem, “The Prayer of Cyrus Brown,” by Sam Walter Foss says it well:

“The Proper way for a man to pray,”

Said deacon Lemuel Keyes,

“And the only proper attitude

Is down upon his knees.”

“No, I should say the way to pray,”

Said Reverend Doctor Wise,

“Is standing straight with outstretched arms

And rapt and upturned eyes.”

“Oh, no, no, no,”

Said Elder Slow,

“Such posture is too proud.

A man should pray with eyes fast-closed,

And head contritely bowed.”

“It seem to me his hands should be

Austerely clasped in front

With both thumbs pointing toward the ground,”

Said Reverend Doctor Blunt.

“Last year I fell in Hidgekin’s well

Headfirst,” said Cyrus Brown,

“With both my heals a-stickin’ up

And my head a-pointin’ down.

And I made a prayer then and there,

The best prayer I ever said,

The prayingest prayer I ever prayed,

A-standin’ on my head.”[1]

No matter what our physical posture might be, we approach God in reverence, submission, and earnestness.

III. The Object of Prayer (vs. 14c‑15)

. . . unto the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ,

Of Whom the whole family in heaven and earth is named.

May we please meditate on five thoughts concerning the object of prayer, that is, to Whom we are pray.

First, it is vital that we understand more than anything else, that God is a Father. This is best illustrated in “The Model Prayer” (Matt. 6:9‑13). The first guideline of prayer is that we pray to “Our Father, Who art in heaven.” We often think of God as “The Sovereign Being,” “The Omnipotent One,” “The Savior of the World,” and several other titles and names. But His “Fatherhood” is to be emphasized above all when speaking of personal relationship. In the Model Prayer, and its immediate context, God is referred to as “Father” five times (vs. 9, 14, 15, 18). This is extremely important for us to see. Above all other relationships, God is a Father.

Second, the Old Testament Jews’ view of the Fatherhood of God. The Jews of the Old Testament saw five basic principles concerning God’s Fatherhood.

1. They saw God’s Fatherhood in terms of His begetting. I Chronicles 29:10 gives Him a title, “Lord God of Israel, our Father,” and views Him as the One Who has begotten the nations.

2. They saw God’s Fatherhood in terms of His nearness to them. They saw that, as a Father, He is closer than any relative or friend. Psalm 68 pictures this; God is viewed riding through the clouds with His 20,000 chariots and angels. But then the Psalmist pulls back from this mighty grandeur to view the personal thrust—“A Father to the fatherless.” What a contrast in a single context!

3. They saw God’s Fatherhood in terms of His loving grace. The Jews saw God’s Fatherhood as something forgiving, tenderhearted, merciful, and gracious. “As a father pities His children, so the Lord pities them that fear Him” (Ps. 103:13).

4. They saw God’s Fatherhood in terms of His guidance. Jeremiah wrote, “They shall come with weeping, and with supplications I will lead them: I will cause them to walk by the rivers of waters in a straight way, wherein they shall not stumble: for I am a Father to Israel” (Jer. 31:9). While these first four views might on the surface seem to sentimentalize God, the fifth view proves that this was not the case with the Jews.

5. They saw God’s Fatherhood in terms of their obedience to Him. Here is the capstone, the view that balances the others. After much rebellion and corruption, Moses said to Israel: “Do you thus repay the Lord . . . Is He not your Father Who has bought you?” (Deut. 32:6). “All that God has done for you,” Moses declares, “and this is how you repay Him? You dare to rebel and disobey His Word?”

Tragically, however, the Jews lost sight of the intimacy of relationship between God and His people. By Jesus’ day God’s Fatherhood was thought of more in terms of His over‑all care for Israel; the intimacy of personal relationship was gone. It even became blasphemous to mention His name—Yahweh. This leads to our third observation.

Third, Jesus’ use of Father brought back the intimacy of personal relationship. Romans 8:15 tells us: “Ye have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father.” “Adoption” means “son‑placing” (see Chapter 3). The use of this word here reminds us of the word “our” in the Model Prayer, as both picture the family relationship. “Abba” (used also in Mk. 14:36 and Gal. 4:6) is an Aramaic word used among Jews as the familiar term children used to their father. In fact, it is used even today in Hebrew speaking families. An unfortunate English equivalent that has been popularized today is “Daddy.” As we studied back in 2:19b (Chapter 18), this term has taken on a too sentimental tone and has given way to a somewhat “buddy‑buddy” relationship with God. More precisely it means, “My father,” “Father, my Father” or, “Dear Father,” which emphasize the necessity of reverence. There can be little doubt that Jesus used this word in His Model Prayer. The Greek patēr is used to translate the Aramaic abba. And we know for a fact that He used the term in Gethsemane—“Abba, Father” (Mk. 14:36).

So, when Jesus said “Our Father,” this was without doubt a stunning shock to the Jews who heard it. They were reintroduced to the fact that God is a caring, loving, and personal Father; they were reintroduced to the fact that man can have a personal relationship with God. This thought leads to another.

Fourth, God is not everyone’s Father. Liberal Theology speaks of “the universal Fatherhood of God” and “the universal brotherhood of man.” It maintains that God is the Father of all man kind. But the Bible does not teach that. The only aspect of this that is true is in the sense of creation. Malachi 2:10 declares, “Have we not all one Father? Hath not one God created us?” Paul said, “We are the offspring of God” (Acts 17), but this is only in the sense of creation, not in the sense of relationship. The liberals tell us that God is the Father of all men by relationship, but that is not so. Jesus told the Pharisees that they were of their father the devil (Jn. 8:44). I John 3 clearly shows two families: either we are children of God or children of the devil. In Ephesians 5:8 Paul makes a clear distinction between children of darkness and children of light. But the key verse to this is found in John 1:12: “But as many as received him, to them gave he power [i.e., right] to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” No person was born physically into God’s family. Only Jesus was a “begotten Son” (Jn. 3:16, etc.), “the only begotten of the Father, full of grace and truth” (Jn. 1:17). Rather, we are “adopted children,” brought into the family because of what Jesus accomplished on the cross. Receiving the message of Christ is the only thing that will bring us into the family.

Moreover, neither is Paul teaching universalism in verse 15 as the liberals insist. Why? Because once again, the Lord Jesus is mentioned as the One upon Whom membership in the family of God is based.

It is that very thought that leads us to two textual issues in this verse. First, the Critical Text, and therefore virtually all modern translations, omit the words of our Lord Jesus Christ. We must submit once again that this is serious error. The Greek manuscript evidence overwhelmingly favors these words,[2] and they appear in ancient versions, such as the early 2^nd Century Syriac Version.[3] These words should be retained because they strongly emphasize our relationship with Christ as the basis for entry into the family of God. As always, our relationship with Christ dictates everything, whether we are in the family of Satan or the family of God.[4] This is precisely why we pray “in Jesus’ name” (Jn. 14:13‑14; 16:23‑24); because it is only through Him that we can come before the Father.

Second, the other textual issue is one of translation. It’s been argued whether the Greek behind the whole family (pasa patria) should be translated thusly or whether it should be translated “every family” (NASB, NRSV) or even “every fatherhood.” The argument for “every family” is that the Greek does not include the definite article so we can’t translate it the whole family. In response, however, it is not unusual for an article to be omitted when the context is clear as to what is in view. Acts 2:36, for example, reads, “Let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made that same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ” (emphasis added). Even though the article is absent, the true meaning is clear. II Timothy 3:16 also omits the article, but it still must be translated “all scripture” or “the whole Scripture.”

Likewise the context here could not be clearer; Paul is speaking of a single family. As William Hendrickson notes,

[Paul] has just told us that all those who believe in Christ, whether they be Jews or Gentiles, now constitute one household, a synonym for one family. Not only that, but he has even mentioned the Father’s relation to this household or family (2:18-19). In subsequent passages he has re-emphasized this same thought, thought by the use of different metaphors (2:20-22; 3:6). He is going to stress it again in 4:1-6.[5]

To translate this “every family” is, therefore, to contradict everything Paul has been saying about oneness. It misses the whole point of what Paul has been discussing. It even implies that there is more than one family, perhaps one Jewish and another Gentile. Paul’s point once again is the unity of the Body.[6]

Fifth, the significance of praying to the Father. Keeping all we have studied in mind, consider the significance of praying to our heavenly Father:

· Indicates a personal relationship

· Indicates the peace, hope, trust, and belonging that a father gives

· Indicates the watch‑care, provision, and protection a father gives

· Indicates our submission and obedience

In closing, we should point out that some say that the best description of God is not a Father because some people have had a terrible earthly father, which therefore, gives a terrible picture of God. But this isn’t God’s fault! It’s not God’s fault that man has perverted the father‑child relationship. If we may put it this way: just because a man sires a child, that doesn’t make him a father. Oh yes, in the world’s eyes he is a father, but not in God’s. The term father goes deeper than just the physical meaning. God has given us the picture of a true father by giving us the characteristics of how he deals with us. It is, therefore, up to every man to conform to the image of fatherhood God has given.

Dear Christian, do you have the right approach to prayer? Do you have the right reason, the right posture, and the right object?

Back to Ephesians Back to Home Page