The Cloud of Witnesses
A case for intercessory prayer
I have recently seen some instances of catechumens and others crossing the bridge from western protestant Christianity to Eastern Orthodoxy or Roman Catholicism who have struggled with the concept of intercessory prayer. Pre-existing conditioning with the concepts of sola-scriptura and a paradigm that views death as a hard barrier, inquirers often experience instinctive resistance, viewing the practice as a departure from what they understand as biblical practise.
However, when examined holistically, the invocation of the saints is not a late pagan corruption (I’ve spent the last couple episodes debunking some of these pagan corruption myths, this is no different.) Rather this practice is a highly sophisticated, deeply scriptural, and organically coherent extension of the New Testament understanding of the Body of Christ.
Once they can break through this mindset, however, a whole new world of understanding opens to them. I know this to be true as it aligns with my own experience.
On Substack a creator I follow (@annaseemo) recently posted the following note which spurred the revisiting of this issue:
My relationship with the saints has been somewhat awkward for me as I slowly shed my evangelical Protestant background to embrace Holy Orthodoxy.
However, today I bent my neck and kissed the holy relics of the Wonderworker St. John of Shanghai in San Francisco. Today I sang his Troparion with tears and celebrated his blessed feast. Today I truly realized the magnitude and reality of the saints. Today I remembered that our highest calling in our earthly lives is the acquisition of holiness in Christ our Lord. Today I realized how I have hardly even begun walking in this race! Lord have mercy, and pray for us, O wonderworker John!
I could really relate. Although my religious background was quite different I went through a very similar experience. I responded with:
When you finally have that realization of the reality and presence of the saints, it’s like a whole new universe opens up to you, things you’ve been learning start to click and fall into place and then you realize that you are just starting the journey, and how far you really have to go.
but! better late than never!
That sparked this post and as a result, this article is not meant as an apologetic or to convince anyone who is already dead set against this idea. It’s only to help those who are open to and wanting to accepting the idea understand the context of the practice and explore the support for it, as well as to put the arguments against it into proper context. I hope to base the context for this discussion primarily on the Bible since many coming to the church still retain the instinct and impulse that the Bible is the sole authority on divine teaching (the OP references coming from an evangelical protestant background, so this impulse is likely to be there. Some things take time to adjust to.)
I think that it is important to approach the topic from this perspective, demonstrating that this tradition is not only ancient and authentic, but is permissible and, in fact, a natural extension of core biblical truths.
One first immediate objection that I often see in online debates/discussions is that. This practice is not directly addressed in the bible, in contrast to what appear to be prohibitions against it.
Getting our Thinking Right
To understand this doctrine, we first need to overcome our own modern snobbery. Often we assume that ancient people, Christians included, were primitive, simplistic, or prone to superstitious thinking. As evidenced by the flawless deductive rigor of Euclid’s Elements, the formal logic of Aristotle's Prior Analytics, the staggering metacognition of Marcus Aurelius’s Meditations, and the algorithmic precision of Pāṇini’s Sanskrit grammar, large parts of the ancient world (particularly those handed down to us) operated at an elite level of intellectual astuteness that is rare even by modern standards.1 The reality is that the level of education and complex thinking may have been higher amongst the educated in antiquity than it is today where we are educated by one teacher to 30 students in a public education curriculum calibrated for the lowest common denominator.
“But it’s not in the Bible!” is a common rebuttal that I've heard many times. And in my mind I think that this is both true and false at the same time. It is true that the doctrine of intercession of the Saints is not plainly addressed simply and directly in scripture using the terms we would use today, but neither is the doctrine of the Trinity (the word trinity does not exist in the Bible at all) and virtually all Christians today are Trinitarians. In fact, we often use acceptance of the Trinity as a litmus test to determine whether or not one is a Christian. Like the Trinity, this is something that comes out of a comprehensive reading of scripture that pulls in clues and facts from many places order to formulate a comprehensive belief and practise that is well supported by scripture.2
This is a pattern of practice evident from the earliest days of the church. When the Early Church formulated its practices, it did not rely on wild speculation. They, like our scientists today, built robust philosophical and theological models based on collecting, understanding and structuring data - looking for patterns that would not otherwise be obvious.
The Orthodox understanding of the Communion of Saints functions precisely like this: it is a robust theological model that synthesizes numerous scriptural data points, a firm understanding of cultural context (which we will examine next,) and extra-biblical statements from Apostolic Fathers (those taught directly by the Apostles themselves) to bring it all together into a cohesive, non-contradictory whole.
This defense rests on three fundamental pillars:
The ongoing, active life of the saints in Christ;
The scriptural pattern of intercessory prayer within the Body of Christ, and
The preservation of Christ’s unique role as the sole mediator of salvation.
Preamble: Disambiguating Terms and Concepts
Having Fun with Semantic Drift
A huge challenge to trying to understand what the Bible means is something called semantic drift. I’m not a linguist, but I’ll attempt to illustrate the concept below (linguists in the audience pls forgive me if I get it wrong!)
Culture and a culture’s use of language - and the ideas that words represent - are not static. They change through time. Look for example at the word Boomer. For most of my life Boomer was a shortened slang used to refer to the Baby Boomers - those born after WW2. When my kids, millenials and gen-z, use the term Boomer they apply it to me, even though technically I’m gen-x. Boomer has become just a generic term for someone who is old. Originally it referred to a specific generation and age group, and Boomers and Gen-X were considered separately. Now Boomer just means old. The use of the word and the ideas behind the word have shifted, merged and changed in a very short amount of time, within my lifetime of 52 years.
How much more should we expect them to change over 2000 years (32 times longer than my age.) Can you imagine taking something written today and delivering it to someone in the past? We wouldn’t even have to go back 2000 years, heck just 200 years would be enough. Let’s have some fun with this shall we?
Pretend that we wrote something about Marianne Williamson that said: "Marianne is a cool boomer who was really into hippy flower power. She recently went viral after a hot take on her live stream, which completely blew up the internet. Now she’s just trying to unplug and avoid being cancelled."
Now take that comment, put it in a time machine and deliver it to someone in 1826. What would they think we were saying? A plain and direct/literal reading would likely be completely baffling. Here is how it would likely have been understood just 200 years ago.
“Into hippy flower power”
1826 Meaning: Obsessed with the pelvic measurements of horses and the structural physics of botanical gardens.
Literal Interpretation: In the early 19th century, “hippy” (derived from hip) was a specific equestrian term used to describe a horse with prominent, malformed, or asymmetrical hip bones (a “hippy horse”). “Power” was strictly mechanical (like steam or water power). Therefore, being “into hippy flower power” would mean this individual was fascinated by a physically deformed horse that was somehow generating industrial, mechanical energy using crushed blossoms.
“On her live stream”
1826 Meaning: Standing directly inside a fast-moving, un-frozen river.
Literal Interpretation: A “stream” was a body of running water. To describe it as “live” meant it was active, flowing, and not frozen over with ice. A “hot take” (a high-temperature physical seizure or theft) occurring on her “live stream” means this poor woman suffered a burning medical fit while physically standing knee-deep in a rushing river alongside her deformed botanical horse.
By adding these details, the 19th-century reader would synthesize this text into an alarming report something along the lines of:
“The subject is a shivering, unexploded cannon of a woman who was deeply obsessed with a deformed-hipped horse that generates mechanical power from vegetation. She recently contracted a venomous biological poison and suffered a high-temperature feverish seizure while standing inside a rushing river. This medical event caused the connection between her internal organs to violently detonate, and now she is pulling the wooden corks out of her wounds to drain the fluid, desperately hoping to prevent her financial assets from being erased so she can stay out of prison.”
The result is, of course, hilarious and absurd and another reason why, in my thinking, attempting to understand the bible by a “plain and direct reading” is not only infeasible but technically impossible without proper education on the cultural and linguistic context of the scriptures.
Now back to the matter at hand. Much of the impulse to object to “prayer” to the saints rests on modern semantic drift. In contemporary English, words and concepts that were once wholly distinct have become merged. For example, "prayer" and "worship" have become synonymous but in antiquity and for most of Christian history, the distinctions were razor-sharp.
I wish to recall to mind the understanding we covered previously that in antiquity people were not stupid, they were capable of thought just as complex, if not more, than our level of thought today. Read ancient classics and you’ll quickly realize that ancient writers and thinkers were well educated and mentally astute, to a level sometimes far greater than exists, on average, today.
The Meaning of Prayer
Historically, "to pray" simply meant to make a polite, earnest request to another person. This is why characters in Shakespeare routinely say, "Pray you, sit," or "I pray thee."
Prayer is a form of communication to ask for something. Prayer itself is not Worship.
The word “pray” comes from the Latin precari, meaning “to entreat, beg, or implore.” In its original and most common usage in Early Modern English, it was a way of expressing a sincere request or polite entreaty to another person, not only to deity. It was a formal and respectful way of saying “I beg you,” or “I ask you.” This meaning is why you often see phrases like “I pray you” or “pray thee” in older literature. It was a common linguistic formula for making a courteous request. While it could certainly be directed towards God, its use among people was more prevalent. Shakespeare’s works are filled with examples of “pray” used in this sense of a polite request or entreaty. In Shakespeare’s time, “pray” was a versatile and common word used to make a polite or earnest request to anyone, high or low, in both formal and informal contexts.
“Pray you, sit.”
This is one of the most common usages. It’s a simple, formal way of saying “Please, sit down.” It’s a direct request to another person.
“Pray, do not mock me.”
From A Midsummer Night’s Dream, this line is a plea from Hermia to Lysander. She is begging him to stop, not praying in a religious sense. It’s a direct, emotional entreaty.
“I pray you, father, do not look with such a bitter eye upon my poor innocence.”
In King Lear, this is Cordelia’s direct appeal to her father. She is not praying to God but earnestly asking her father to reconsider his harsh judgment.
Thus we can see that when we understand the concept of Prayer in its proper context, that it carries no inherent connotation of divine adoration or worship; it is communication across a relational boundary. When you hear the word Pray, mentally replace that with “Entreat” or “Petition.”
Worship vs Veneration
Anciently, there was a well known distinction between worship, communication, and veneration that has largely been lost or forgotten in western culture - particularly in a religious context, leading to mistaken thinking that sometimes causes protestants to level accusations of idolatry when speaking about intercession of saints or veneration of icons.
The Orthodox church, being the original church, has retained a clear theological distinction between worship and veneration that is preserved in Greek terms which retain a precision that modern English lacks.
Veneration comes from the Latin venerari, which means “to revere.”
Veneration (Greek Dulia - within a religious context): This is a profound respect and honor shown to those who have attained holiness and enjoy a special relationship with God. The Orthodox Church also has a special term for the honor given to the Virgin Mary, hyperdulia, which is a higher form of respect and honor, but is still not worship.
Worship (Latria): The highest form of sacrificial adoration and religious service, reserved for God alone. It is a recognition of God as the Creator, the ultimate authority, and the source of all being. To offer latria to anyone or anything else is considered idolatry. As Jesus declared to Satan, using this exact Greek word: “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve (latreuo)” (Matthew 4:10).
The distinction between these concepts is crucial. When a person venerates a saint, an icon, or a relic, they are not treating that person or object as God, neither are they offering worship. Instead, they are honoring the holiness of the person or the spiritual reality they represent, and asking them to pray to God on their behalf. The honor given to the image or person “passes to the prototype,” meaning the respect is directed toward God, who made them worthy of such honor in the first place, not to the wood, paint, canvas or person you see before you.
This is analogous to how one might respect and honor a secular hero. You might praise them, put their photo on a wall, and celebrate their deeds, but you would not worship them as a god.
Worship is neither veneration or prayer, although we often confuse these concepts in modern everyday life because we have been taught to pray to God and we inherently venerate him. The English word Worship initially meant to ascribe value or worth to something (worth+ship) and was typically used in a secular context (i.e., a medieval Lord might be addressed as “Your Worship” as a title to ascribe worth, dignity, and honor to a particular individual). Later on, the word became almost exclusively associated with the honor and reverence given to God when English translations of the bible used the word to translate Hebrew and Greek words that mean to bow down, show homage, and to serve God.
Shachah (שָׁחָה): This is the most common Hebrew word translated as worship. Its literal meaning is to prostrate oneself or to bow down. This act can be done as a sign of reverence to God (Genesis 24:26), but it is also used to show respect to other people, such as Abraham bowing before the Hittites (Genesis 23:7) or Jacob bowing before Esau (Genesis 33:3). The context determines if the act is religious worship or secular honor.
Abad (עָבַד): This word means to serve or to labor. While it can describe manual labor, it is also used to describe serving God (Deuteronomy 6:13). It points to worship as a full-life service and obedience, not just a physical posture.
Proskuneo (προσκυνέω): This word is the Greek equivalent of shachah. It literally means “to kiss toward” and refers to bowing down or prostrating oneself in homage. It is the most common Greek word for worship, and it is used for both the adoration of God (John 4:24) and the homage paid to a human king (Matthew 2:2).
Latreuo (λατρεύω): This is the Greek equivalent of abad and means to render religious service. This term is always used in the Bible to refer exclusively to the worship owed to God alone. Jesus uses this word when he tells Satan, “You shall worship the Lord your God, and Him only shall you serve (latreuo)” (Matthew 4:10).
Who are the Saints?
My chatechist explains it using a sports analogy. In many sports, athletes are recognized in the Hall of Fame for their outstanding achievements. For us, the Saints are the “hall of fame’ers” of Christianity. Those who in this life achieved Theosis or a very high level of spiritual progression and holiness, and as a result, after their repose, their souls are with Christ.
Principles of Support
Now that we have disambiguated some concepts and build an appropriate mental framework we can better understand what follows.
This model rests on three immutable biblical truths. (Summaries below, with detailed examinations to follow.)
The Life of the Saints in Christ - The objection that we cannot communicate with the departed assumes that physical death forces the soul into an unconscious slumber or severs its connection to the Church. Scripture aggressively refutes this.
The Metaphysics of Life in God: In Luke 20:37-38, Christ explicitly states, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to Him.” For God, the departed saints are entirely alive.
Conscious Immediacy: In Philippians 1:21-23, St. Paul states that to die is “gain” because it means to “depart and be with Christ, which is far better.” His use of the Greek analysai (to unmoor a ship or break camp) implies a conscious, active transition into Christ’s immediate presence, not a state of dynamic flatlining.
Heavenly Awareness and Liturgy: Revelation 6:9-10 depicts the souls of the martyred saints under the heavenly altar. They are fully conscious, possess memory of earthly events, experience holy emotions, and are actively crying out to God in a loud voice. Death has not diminished their vitality; it has perfected it.
Intercessory Prayer is a Cosmic, Corporate Reality - According to St. Paul, nothing, including death, can separate us from the love of God in Christ (Romans 8:38-39). The Church is a single, undivided organism. If the saints are alive in Christ, they remain part of the Body. Therefore, asking a saint in heaven to pray for you is fundamentally identical to asking your pastor or a pious friend to pray for you.
Christ’s Unique Mediatorship - The most commonly used counter-text is 1 Timothy 2:5: "For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus." Nobody doubts this, we fully and strictly affirms this. Christ is the sole salvific, atoning mediator. He alone is the God-Man who bridges the infinite chasm of sin, offering Himself as the ransom for humanity. No saint can atone for sin, save a soul, or establish a covenant. However, a mere four verses earlier, in 1 Timothy 2:1, Paul commands: "I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people." If Christ's unique mediatorship prohibited human intercession, Paul would be contradicting himself by commanding Christians to intercede for one another. There is a vast difference between salvific mediation (which belongs to Christ alone) and communal intercession (which is the duty of the whole Body). Asking a saint to pray for us is not an alternative to Christ; it is an appeal to a brother or sister to join us in approaching Christ.
1: The Saints are Consciously Alive and Active in Christ
A common objection to asking saints for prayer is the assumption that this is fundamentally identical to necromancy, )which we’ll address directly below.) The very thought is preposterous.
As mentioned above: the saints who have departed this life are not unconscious or removed from the Body of Christ; they are more alive than ever, in the immediate presence of God for those we call saints are those who have achieved theosis and made holy in the Lord. I want to hammer on this point with some force because this seems to be the most difficult part of those who do not believe in intercessory prayer to accept (usually because they are in a tradition that rejects it and cite the Old Testament Deuteronomy 18:11 and Isaiah 8:19 as justification.)
Luke 20:38: Jesus Himself declares, “He is not the God of the dead, but of the living, for all live to him.” Christ make a point of emphasis in the preceding verse 37 of the same book of scripture when he says “Even Moses showed in the account about the burning bush that the dead are raised, when he called the Lord: ‘The God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob.” For God, there is no state of unconsciousness for those who have reposed in the faith. They are fully alive. This is why in the Orthodox church, we do not say that people are dead. We might say they are asleep or that they have reposed, but that is different from death.
In the quoted scripture above, Christ is speaking to the Sadducees (who denied there would be a resurrection) and emphasizing this same point, that God is a God of the Living not the dead and that all are alive in Him.
Those who persist in their opposition to intercessory prayer to the Saints often have a difficult time grasping the stark reality of this concept. But let’s turn and look at biblical New Testament example.
The Transfiguration of the Lord
I would like to use this as an example of the fact that all are alive in God, particularly the Saints. This is well attested to in Scripture, and while most of us remember the Transfiguration and glorification of the Lord there is a small detail that we often neglect, which is highly important to this discussion, the appearance of Moses and Elias, from Old Testament times, long dead and buried by this point, yet we are told they appear and speak with Christ, and then poof they are gone again a short time later strongly implying that it’s not a resurrected Moses or Elias we are seeing, but a manifestation of a spiritual reality of two ancient living patriarchs Moses and Elias.
1 And after six days Jesus taketh Peter, James, and John his brother, and bringeth them up into an high mountain apart,
2 And was transfigured before them: and his face did shine as the sun, and his raiment was white as the light.
3 And, behold, there appeared unto them Moses and Elias talking with him.
4 Then answered Peter, and said unto Jesus, Lord, it is good for us to be here: if thou wilt, let us make here three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
5 While he yet spake, behold, a bright cloud overshadowed them: and behold a voice out of the cloud, which said, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased; hear ye him.
6 And when the disciples heard it, they fell on their face, and were sore afraid.
7 And Jesus came and touched them, and said, Arise, and be not afraid.
8 And when they had lifted up their eyes, they saw no man, save Jesus only.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, Jesus charged them, saying, Tell the vision to no man, until the Son of man be risen again from the dead.
10 And his disciples asked him, saying, Why then say the scribes that Elias must first come?
11 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Elias truly shall first come, and restore all things.
12 But I say unto you, That Elias is come already, and they knew him not, but have done unto him whatsoever they listed. Likewise shall also the Son of man suffer of them.
13 Then the disciples understood that he spake unto them of John the Baptist.
2 ¶ And after six days Jesus taketh with him Peter, and James, and John, and leadeth them up into an high mountain apart by themselves: and he was transfigured before them.
3 And his raiment became shining, exceeding white as snow; so as no fuller on earth can white them.
4 And there appeared unto them Elias with Moses: and they were talking with Jesus.
5 And Peter answered and said to Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias.
6 For he wist not what to say; for they were sore afraid.
7 And there was a cloud that overshadowed them: and a voice came out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
8 And suddenly, when they had looked round about, they saw no man any more, save Jesus only with themselves.
9 And as they came down from the mountain, he charged them that they should tell no man what things they had seen, till the Son of man were risen from the dead.
10 And they kept that saying with themselves, questioning one with another what the rising from the dead should mean.
28 ¶ And it came to pass about an eight days after these sayings, he took Peter and John and James, and went up into a mountain to pray.
29 And as he prayed, the fashion of his countenance was altered, and his raiment was white and glistering.
30 And, behold, there talked with him two men, which were Moses and Elias:
31 Who appeared in glory, and spake of his decease which he should accomplish at Jerusalem.
32 But Peter and they that were with him were heavy with sleep: and when they were awake, they saw his glory, and the two men that stood with him.
33 And it came to pass, as they departed from him, Peter said unto Jesus, Master, it is good for us to be here: and let us make three tabernacles; one for thee, and one for Moses, and one for Elias: not knowing what he said.
34 While he thus spake, there came a cloud, and overshadowed them: and they feared as they entered into the cloud.
35 And there came a voice out of the cloud, saying, This is my beloved Son: hear him.
36 And when the voice was past, Jesus was found alone. And they kept it close, and told no man in those days any of those things which they had seen.
What is clear from the Transfiguration is that Moses and Elias both appeared, spoke with Christ and then disappeared. They were alive and capable of speaking.
Philippians 1:21-23: The Apostle Paul expresses his desire to depart and “be with Christ, for that is far better.” For background, in the context of this scripture, Paul is in prison and facing the possibility of death. He states that for him, “to live is Christ, and to die is gain.” (Ph 1:21) In other words, his life’s purpose is to serve Christ, but death would be a direct benefit because it would mean being in the presence of Christ. He expresses a strong desire to “depart and be with Christ,” because he believes that is “far better.”
The Greek word for “depart” here (analysai) also means “to un-moor” a ship or “to break camp,” suggesting a journey or a move from one place to another. This language indicates a conscious transition, not a period of rest or unconsciousness.
The scripture is not about him settling down or being at peace facing death in his current situation, but about his active longing for the moment he will be fully united with Christ, which he clearly views as a conscious and immediate state. He does not anticipate an unconscious slumber, but a conscious, immediate union with Christ.
Revelation 6:9: “When he opened the fifth seal, I saw under the altar the souls of those who had been slain because of the word of God and the testimony they had maintained. They called out in a loud voice, “How long, Sovereign Lord, holy and true, until you judge the inhabitants of the earth and avenge our blood?” Then each of them was given a white robe, and they were told to wait a little longer, until the full number of their fellow servants, their brothers and sisters, were killed just as they had been. This is a direct, visual depiction of the martyred saints being fully conscious, actively engaged, residing in the presence of God, asking God for justice and being told to wait a little while longer. Does this sound like a description of people who are stone cold dead, unconscious, uncommunicative, unthinking and unfeeling? Not at all.
Hebrews 12:1: “Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles. And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.” The Greek word for “witnesses” is martyron, the same root for “martyrs.” These witnesses are not passive spectators; they are active testifiers in the great race of faith, cheering us on and participating in our spiritual journey. Their victory is our encouragement, and their union with God makes their prayers potent.
The biblical witness is clear: death for the Christian is a transition to a more perfect life within the body of Christ, not an end to consciousness or spiritual activity (else how could Moses and Elias have been speaking with Christ?). To be “absent from the body” is to be “at home with the Lord” (2 Corinthians 5:8-9). “We are confident, I say, and would prefer to be away from the body and at home with the Lord. So we make it our goal to please him, whether we are at home in the body or away from it.”
2: Intercessory Prayer is a Scriptural Pattern for All Believers
Almost all Christians (and those christian adjacent) readily embrace the idea of asking a friend or family member to pray for them. This is itself an act of intercession, which is a form of mediation. The practice of asking the saints for prayer is simply an extension of this biblically approved principle, based on the understanding that the saints in heaven are just as much, if not more, a part of the Body of Christ than we are.
1 Timothy 2:1: Paul explicitly commands, “I urge that supplications, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgivings be made for all people.” Intercession is a duty for all believers.
James 5:16: “… The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.” This verse emphasizes the effectiveness of the prayers of those who are righteous. Who could be more righteous than those who are fully perfected in Christ, standing in His immediate presence?
Revelation 5:8: This is perhaps the most direct scriptural evidence. The twenty-four elders in heaven, who represent the perfected saints of the Old and New Testaments, are seen holding “golden bowls full of incense3, which are the prayers of the saints.” This passage illustrates the prayers of believers on earth being offered to God through the perfected saints in heaven. It is a heavenly liturgy in which the saints play a clear and active role.
Revelation 5:8 and Revelation 8:3-4. In Revelation 5:8, the Apostle John sees the “four living creatures and the twenty-four elders” (The twenty-four elders in heaven represent the perfected saints of the Old and New Testaments,) and they are holding “golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.” It is clear that God is not simply receiving the prayers of believers on earth; they are being actively gathered and presented to Him by the saints in heaven. This is a powerful picture that connects heavenly worship with earthly prayer. In the Old Testament, the burning of incense on the altar was a symbol of prayer ascending to God (Psalm 141:24). The elders, who represent the perfected saints of both the Old and New Testaments, are acting as heavenly priests, offering the prayers of the Church to God. A similar image is repeated in Revelation 8:3-4, “Another angel, who had a golden censer, came and stood at the altar. He was given much incense to offer, with the prayers of all God’s people, on the golden altar in front of the throne.” The smoke of the incense is explicitly identified as the prayers. “The smoke of the incense, together with the prayers of God’s people, went up before God from the angel’s hand.” This reinforces the idea that the prayers of believers on earth are not private, solitary acts but are part of a heavenly liturgy of the body of Christ. With the prayers of God’s people I think is also important. Does God only have people who are currently up and walking around on Earth or does he have people who have passed away. Think of a pious relative, a mother / father / aunt / uncle / grandmother or grandfather. Just because they are no longer with us, does that mean that they are no longer one of God’s people? The saints and angels in heaven participate in this liturgy, presenting our petitions to God. This illustrates a very direct biblical argument that shows that those who have supposedly “died” in Christ are still active, conscious, and involved in the prayer life of the Church.
The saints’ intercession is not an act of usurpation but one of cooperation. They do not replace Christ’s mediatorship; they participate in the great work of prayer that He has entrusted to His Body.
3: The Distinction of Christ’s Mediation
A common objection to intercessory prayer come from Old Testament prohibitions against necromancy (which we examine below) and an often quoted scripture is 1 Timothy 2:5: “For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus.” This verse is rightly understood to mean that Christ is the sole atoning, salvific mediator. He alone is God and Man, able to bridge the infinite gap created by sin and reconcile humanity to the Father through His sacrifice.
We fully affirm this. When we ask a saint to pray for us, we are not asking them to atone for our sins, save us, or mediate a new covenant. We are asking them to do what we ask our friends on earth to do: to lift our needs before God.
For example, consider the role of Moses in the Old Testament. He frequently acted as an intercessor for Israel before God, and God often responded to his prayer (Exodus 32:11-14; Numbers 11:2). Was Moses replacing God? No. He was acting as a righteous man whose prayer had great efficacy. The saints are a continuation of this biblical tradition, only now they are perfected in Christ.
The prayer of the saints is not an alternative to praying directly to God, but a powerful complement to it. It is a recognition that we are not solitary individuals but part of the living Body of Christ, a family and community that spans both heaven and earth.
Exploding the Necromancy Objection
Key scriptural objections often raised by modern christians are the biblical prohibitions against “speaking to the dead” found in passages like Deuteronomy 18:11 and Isaiah 8:19. A careful examination reveals that these verses are prohibitions against pagan occultic practices of Necromancy, not against communal prayer within the Body of Christ.
Deuteronomy 18:10-12: “Let no one be found among you who sacrifices their son or daughter in the fire, who practices divination or sorcery, interprets omens, engages in witchcraft, or casts spells, or who is a medium or spiritist or who consults the dead. Anyone who does these things is detestable to the Lord; because of these same detestable practices, the Lord your God will drive out those nations before you.” Many who object to intercessory prayer do so based on the assumptions that the Saints are dead and that this injunction applies. The context of this passage is a condemnation of pagan occult practices that were prevalent among the Canaanites (and sadly are prevalent again in our day.) These forbidden acts, such as being a medium, a necromancer, or one who consults spirits, were not attempts to commune with God, but instead attempts to gain secret knowledge or divine guidance by channeling or conjuring the spirits of the deceased (this injunction is before Christ harrowed Hell so these are indeed the spirits of those who dwell in Hades - the realm of the dead.) This practice was a direct replacement for seeking God’s will through His appointed prophets and His law. This is much like the sin of Adam, who attempted to obtain the knowledge to become like God on his own, without God.
Isaiah 8:19: “When someone tells you to consult mediums and spiritists, who whisper and mutter, should not a people inquire of their God? Why consult the dead on behalf of the living?” The prophet Isaiah warns against turning to mediums and necromancers who whisper and mutter instead of seeking “the law and the testimony” of God. The concern here is about divination and sorcery, a way of seeking forbidden information that bypasses God’s authority and wisdom.
The Orthodox practice of asking for the saints’ prayers is fundamentally different from necromancy.
It is not about channeling or conjuring spirits or consulting mediums or spiritists. It involved no conjuring, seances, or occult rituals.
It is not about seeking illicit, forbidden, hidden, or future information from a source other than or outside of God.
It is a humble petition for a fellow, living member of the Body of Christ, to pray to God on our behalf. We believe the saints are fully alive in Christ’s presence and are aware of our needs.
The practice is an act of communal prayer and veneration, not an act of divination. We venerate the saints for their heroic faith and sacrifices and because they are glorified by God, but our worship (latreia) is reserved for God alone.
The Witness of the Ancient Church
The practice of intercessory prayer to the saints is also found in the earliest Christian writings, showing that this was not a later invention but a practice established early in the history of Christianity.
The practice of asking for the intercessory prayers of the saints is a continuous tradition that extends back to the earliest centuries of the Church, as evidenced by the writings of the Church Fathers.
The video below also review the evidence from early christian sources.
Origen of Alexandria (c. 185-254 AD)
Origen’s connection to the apostles is through a chain of teachers. He was the disciple of Clement of Alexandria, who, in turn, was the disciple of Pantaenus. According to the historian Eusebius of Caesarea (Ecclesiastical History, Book 5, Chapter 10), Pantaenus traveled to India, where he found a copy of the Gospel of Matthew that had been left there by the Apostle Bartholomew. This places Origen within the established line of apostolic teaching handed down from teacher to student.
Origen wrote about the active role of the departed saints in the prayer life of the Church. In his work, On Prayer, he argues that the righteous who have passed away are still praying for those on earth.
“The High Priest prays with those who pray sincerely... But not only the High Priest, but also the angels... as also the souls of the saints who have already fallen asleep.“ (On Prayer, Book XI)
Lee’s Aside: He uses the term fallen asleep, the same way that we refer to those who have “passed on” in the Orthodox church today.
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-c. 215 AD)
Clement claims to have sat at the feet of “blessed and truly remarkable men” who preserved the “true tradition of the blessed doctrine, directly from the holy apostles, Peter and James and John, and Paul.”
Clement speaks of the communion between the faithful on earth and those in heaven, describing how they all pray together.
“In this way is he [the true Christian] always pure for prayer. He also prays in the society of angels, as being already of angelic rank, and he is never out of their holy keeping; and though he pray alone, he has the choir of the saints standing with him [in prayer].“ (Stromata, 7:12)
Saint Cyprian of Carthage (c. 200-258 AD)
As a convert and a bishop in North Africa, Cyprian’s writings reflect the practices and beliefs of the Church at the time.
Living in an age of intense persecution, Cyprian wrote extensively about the martyrs and actively encouraged his flock to ask them for their prayers once they had entered heaven. In a letter to the persecuted Christians in prison, he wrote:
“And if any of you should go first... do not forget to pray for your friends.” (Letter to the Martyrs and Confessors)
He also told another group of confessors that when they finally passed, their intercession would be even more effective.
“Let us remember one another in concord and unanimity. Let us on both sides [of death] always pray for one another. Let us relieve burdens and afflictions by mutual love, that if one of us, by the swiftness of divine condescension, shall go hence first, our love may continue in the presence of the Lord, and our prayers for our brethren and sisters not cease in the presence of the Father’s mercy.“ (Letters, 56:5)
Conclusion
The practice of asking the saints for prayer is not an act of idolatry or a denial of Christ’s unique mediation. Rather, it is a profoundly biblical and deeply communal practice that celebrates the reality that the Body of Christ is at all times alive and undivided. It is a humble acknowledgment that we are not alone in our struggles and that we can lean on the prayerful support of those who have already conquered the race of faith and now stand in the whole light of God’s presence.
We are not praying to them as deities, but we are speaking with them as living, honored members of our family in Christ.
The realization that the author of that substack note experienced is not an emotional delusion; it is an awakening to the cosmic reality of the Ancient Church.
When the modern inquirer looks past semantic confusion, biased translations, and modern traditions invented by men in the 16th century, they discover that the intercession of the saints is a beautifully coherent biblical model. It does not diminish the glory of Christ; it magnifies it by demonstrating that His victory over death was total. The veil has been torn, the grave has been shattered, and the family of God remains forever undivided.
Here are four prominent examples of extant ancient works that demonstrate an extraordinary level of mental astuteness, far above what is prevalent in today’s society:
Meditations (Ta Eis Heauton), by Emperor Marcus Aurelius in the late 2nd century AD. I mention this work b/c it is experiencing a resurgence of interest. Here are some notable qualities of the work:
It is an Ultimate Exercise in Metacognition - Metacognition is the ability to monitor, critique, and regulate one’s own thinking. Meditations was never intended for publication; it was a private psychological journal. In it, the most powerful man in the world actively interrogates his own impulses, ego, and anxieties.
The Cognitive Superiority: While casual modern thought often treats emotions as absolute truths (”I feel angry, therefore someone did something wrong”), Marcus Aurelius ruthlessly separates an external event from his internal judgment of it. He famously notes: “Remove your judgment, and the notion ‘I have been harmed’ is removed.” This is the exact intellectual foundation of modern Cognitive Behavioral Therapy (CBT), conceptualized 1,800 years earlier.
He utilizes an absolute Cosmic Perspective (The “View from Above”) - Modern society is heavily fragmented by immediate, short-term dopamine loops and hyper-individualized anxieties. Marcus Aurelius practiced a mental discipline called the “View from Above,” visualizing his life, his empire, and his problems from a macro-cosmic scale. He routinely forces his mind to zoom out to the entirety of human history and the vastness of space to strip away triviality. He notes how many emperors came before him and were forgotten, and how small his immediate surroundings are in the context of the universe. To maintain that level of existential detachment while managing plagues, economic crises, and border wars requires a staggering level of mental discipline.
Hyper-Realism Without Nihilism. It is easy for a highly analytical mind to slip into cynicism or nihilism when viewing the flaws of humanity. Marcus Aurelius’s astuteness lies in his ability to see human nature with brutal clarity, yet remain entirely functional and empathetic. He begins Book 2 with a famous mental priming exercise: “When you wake up in the morning, tell yourself: The people I deal with today will be meddling, ungrateful, arrogant, dishonest, jealous, and surly.” Instead of using this to justify misanthropy, he immediately follows it with a logical deduction: because they are human, they are made for cooperation, and their ignorance of good and evil is a reason for patience, not anger.
The Prior Analytics by Aristotle (4th Century BC)
Before Aristotle, human beings argued and reasoned, but no one had formally mapped out how valid reasoning actually functions structurally. In the Prior Analytics, Aristotle invented formal logic (which we will explore further) from scratch.
The Achievement: He introduced the system of the syllogism (e.g., If All $A$ is $B$, and All $B$ is $C$, then All $A$ is $C$). More importantly, he used variable letters ($A, B, C$) as placeholders to analyze the structure of an argument independent of its content.
Modern daily discourse is heavily reliant on cognitive biases, emotional appeals, and logical fallacies. Aristotle’s work demands a rigorous formulaic parsing of validity versus truth, constructing a foundational cognitive framework that shaped global philosophy and provided the basis for computers, all of modern technology and computer science thousands of years later.
The Elements by Euclid (c. 300 BC)
Euclid’s Elements is arguably the most influential textbook in human history. It takes chaotic geometric observations and organizes them into a single, seamless logical progression. Starting with only five basic axioms (self-evident truths, such as “a straight line segment can be drawn joining any two points”), Euclid rigorously deduced hundreds of complex mathematical theorems. Each proof builds strictly on the ones that preceded it.
Most people today accept geometric and mathematical facts purely on authority or memorization. Euclid’s work represents a peak of deductive rigor—refusing to accept any statement as true unless it could be definitively proven from absolute foundational principles. It forces a level of spatial and logical discipline that is rarely practiced in day-to-day life.
The Grammar (Ashtadhyayi) by Pāṇini (c. 4th Century BC)
In ancient India, the linguist Pāṇini composed the Ashtadhyayi, a formal treatise on Sanskrit grammar consisting of roughly 4,000 short, highly condensed rules (sutras). Pāṇini did not just list grammatical rules; he created a generative formal language system. It functions exactly like a modern computer programming language, utilizing a meta-language, auxiliary markers, and strict operational algorithms to generate every valid Sanskrit word and sentence from basic roots. Pāṇini’s work predates the concept of formal language theory, data structures, and computer science by over two millennia. The mental astuteness required to map an entire natural spoken language into a flawless, algorithmic machine code is a level of structural engineering that few modern minds ever achieve.
I kind of view it almost as a loose application of a methodology/or framework of thinking analogous to the scientific method. You find little clues/facts scattered about scripture and maybe extra-biblical writing (maybe from patristic sources) then you pull them all together and look at them holistically to formulate a working model (theorem) to explain all of the little facts you have pulled together, such that the theory sits on top of and is supported by the facts.
(Science education aside - because this is a long standing pet peeve)
It’s unfortunate, and an abuse of common language (to use a phrase borrowed from Saint and church father Gregory of Nazianzus) that we use the word Theory in common parlance when we should really be using the more accurate/appropriate terms Speculation, Conjecture, Postulate or Hypothesis - which I think is what people really mean when they say Theory.
Speculation / Conjecture is perhaps the best use for how people colloquially use the term Theory today. A conjecture or speculation is an opinion or conclusion formed on the basis of incomplete information that has not been proven and may not be provable.
A Postulate in math/logic is a statement that is assumed to be true without proof. It’s a reasonable and rational starting point for further reasoning often based on logic and sound reasoning.
A Hypothesis is an “educated guess” based on prior observations, existing knowledge, a narrow set of facts and logic. It’s mean to be an explanation of a set of facts that is meant to be tested. It is a starting point that should lend itself to being proven out by tests and experimentation.
A Theory is supported by many facts, often a mountain of facts across many experiments. WHen you get to this stage the Theory is often beyond “proven” it’s a working model that explains hundreds or thousands of proven facts. So when someone says “it’s only a theory, not a fact,” that is a gross misunderstanding of how Science works. When you hear someone say that you know they are uneducated.
Unfortunately, the way that we abuse the term Theory today leaves people thinking that theories are nothing more than wild guesses that have little or nothing to do with facts. Really we should be using the word speculation when we do that.
incense which is itself considered a burnt offering to the Lord.
“May my prayer be set before you like incense; may the lifting up of my hands be like the evening sacrifice.”