<p>16:26- see on Mt. 6:13; 1 Pet. 2:5.</p><p><em>In that day you shall ask in my name; and I do not say to you that I will pray to the Father for you</em>- The Lord has just explained that &quot;in that day&quot; when they possess the Spirit, they will not need to go to the Father through the Lord. They will have the same relationship with the Father which the Son had and has; see on :23. They would ask the Father on account of being &quot;in Christ&quot;, in His Name, baptized into it and abiding in it with the presence of the Spirit of Christ in their hearts. The Lord will not in some mechanical sense pray to the Father with our words but expressed in different language, with a nudge, as it were, for Him to respond positively because we are the Lord's. We shall be in direct relationship with the Father.&nbsp;</p><p>This unity of Spirit between us, the Son and the Father explains an apparent contradiction in the Lord's discourse in the upper room: &quot;Whatsoever ye shall ask in my name, that will <em>I</em> do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If ye shall ask <em>me</em> anything (being) in my name, that will I do (Jn. 14:13,14 RV)... If ye shall ask anything of <em>the Father</em>, he will give it you in my name... and I say not unto you, that I will pray the Father for you: for the Father himself loveth you&quot; (Jn. 16:23,26 RV). Who do we pray to? The Father, or the Son? Who 'does' the answer to our prayers? God, or Christ? The context of the Lord's words was that &quot;the Father is with me... I am in the Father, and the Father is in me... the Father abiding in me doeth the works&quot;, even as the believers are in the Son and in the Father, as they are in us. This means that the question of who to pray to is on one level irrelevant. Our spirit bears witness with their Spirit, and there is only one spirit. This unity of the believer with the Father is only made possible through the Son, and so our formal prayers should be addressed to God not with &quot;in Christ's Name&quot; tagged on to the end of them for that smacks of ritualism, but on account of our being in Christ, we can have a direct relationship with the Father. But the essence of prayer is not formal request. To pray &ldquo;in my name&rdquo; could mean &lsquo;in union with me&rsquo;; yet Christ was at one with the Father. &quot;He that searches the hearts knows what is the mind of the Spirit&quot; (Rom. 8:27) without us verbalizing our spirit in formal prayer. In the same way as the priests helped / assisted the Old Testament worshippers rather than actually offered their prayers or sacrifices, so with the Lord Jesus. Paul spoke of how he would be helped &quot;through your prayers and the help of the spirit of Jesus&quot; (Phil. 1:19 RSV). Their prayers ascended directly to God, but the response was helped by the spirit of the Lord Jesus which was to be given them in the Comforter; and because He is so sublimely at one with the Father, this means that the help will surely come. The rapport between our spirit and His Spirit is again reflected by the way Rom. 8:6,27 use the same phrase, &ldquo;the mind of the spirit&rdquo;, to describe firstly the mind of <em>our</em> spirit, and then, the mind of the spirit of the Lord Jesus.<br />We will no longer need Christ to ask the Father for us, we will be able to have a direct relationship with the Father in prayer. We will not need to be like the disciples, who in their immaturity asked Jesus to pass on their requests to God (Jn. 11:22). He sees our spirit anyway, He knows our need anyway; this knowledge doesn't depend on the Lord's mediation. The advocate, the Comforter, identifies with the one he helps, stands next to him, knowing his case fully. But as Christ is our advocate, so we should be to our brethren (&quot;comfort&quot; in 2 Cor. 2:7 is s.w. 1 Jn. 2:1). This doesn't necessarily mean that we interpret our brother's words to God, but rather than we pray for our brother, in our own words; we are with our brother, supporting him, knowing his weakness. So on one hand we have a direct relationship with the Father. On the other, the Lord Jesus is our vital, saving advocate with Him. I don't think these two aspects can be reconciled by re-translation or expositional juggling. The fact is, through what the Lord achieved, we theoretically don't need His mediation any longer. He was our High Priest to bring us to God on the cross. He no longer needs to enter into the Holiest Place (cp. heaven) to gain our atonement, for this He did once for all (Heb. 9:26). We should be able to pray with the earnest intensity of Elijah or Moses, who prayed without an intercessor, and were heard. But where we lack that intensity, the Lord Jesus holds up our feeble 'groanings' before the Father. Likewise He is our 'advocate', although theoretically a righteous man doesn't need an advocate. John almost writes as if 'Of course, you won't sin, but if very occasionally you do, Jesus can act as a powerful advocate for you'. And yet in reality, He is acting in the advocate role for much of our sin-stricken lives.</p>