Evangelist
or Witness?
By Stephen
Terry
Commentary
for the Sabbath School Lesson for April 7, 2012
‘And
how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: ‘How beautiful
are the feet of those who bring good news!’” Romans 10:15, NIV
This week’s lesson presents for consideration the two
terms “evangelism” and “witnessing,” or in a more personal sense we can look at
what it means to be an evangelist or a witness. From our modern denominational perspective,
we see an evangelist as a paid clergyman who travels from city to city
presenting a series of sermons culminating in a call to be baptized into a
denominational fellowship. From that same modern viewpoint, we see a witness as
someone, usually a lay person, who shares their faith one-on-one with a friend,
a neighbor, or a co-worker. However, is that perspective purely Biblical or is
it heavily colored with modern hues, hues that distort the picture and limit
its effectiveness?
According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Third
Edition, evangelism is the “zealous preaching and dissemination of the gospel.”
Witnessing, according to the same source is “to testify to one’s religious
belief.” Based on these definitions, I’m not sure we can easily differentiate between
the two. The only apparent difference might be the amount of zeal. But
certainly one can witness with zeal, also. The premise that the two are somehow
exclusive may be an artificial construct of modern times reflecting a
colloquial understanding that could possible hinder rather than promote the
fulfillment of the gospel commission in Matthew, chapter 28. “Therefore go and
make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of
the Son and of the Holy Spirit, and teaching them to obey everything I have
commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”
Matthew 28:19-20, NIV Would compartmentalization of the work into evangelism
and witnessing help or limit this calling?
Notably, neither of the dictionary definitions is
exclusive as to clergy, laity, gender, age, race or any of the common divisors
currently seen in present-day denominational practice. This begs the question,
which is closer to actual Biblical practice, the inclusive language of the
dictionary or the living examples of the modern church? Does it matter? Perhaps
if we go back to what we consider apostolic times, we might find an answer. We could
expect that closer to the original call, they might
understand it better than those of us who are looking through the telescope of
two millennia. That a modern practice may have existed for a few hundred years
is not a defense if it is a deviation from the meaning of the original commission.
Since we see a present division of commission between ordained clergy and un-ordained
laity, we should look at the roots of that dichotomy. Such a division implies a
more “official” ministry on the part of those who are ordained over those who
are not. It is based on a belief that these individuals are more special to God
and so are set apart through a unique ceremony of ordination.
We find the roots of this belief in the ordination of
Aaron and his sons to the Aaronic Priesthood in Leviticus, chapter 8. Without a
doubt, these individuals and their descendants were anointed and set apart in a
special way for religious service in Israel. Their anointing consisted of
washing followed by pouring anointing oil over their heads. This special
consecration continued with the Aaronic Priesthood until Jesus came. Before He
began His ministry, he was ordained as well. He received the washing from John
the Baptist, and after that washing, he received the anointing of the Holy
Spirit. (See Matthew 3:13-17) The lesser does not anoint the greater. It is the
other way around. Since there was none greater on earth than Jesus, He received
His anointing from heaven. Since His anointing was greater than the anointing
of Aaron who was anointed by Moses, His ministry is also greater. The book of
Hebrews says that His priesthood is Melchizedekian, which translates into “King
of Righteousness.” This is significant because it ended the Aaronic order with
the tearing open of the most holy place in the temple in Jerusalem. (See
Matthew 27:51) The blood of the Perfect Sacrifice had been presented outside of
the most holy place, outside of Jerusalem, for all to see. No more sacrifices,
no more earthly temples were necessary.
The model upon which the present day ordination of
clergy, as distinct from laity, was based ended at the cross. If the
justification for that ordination was ended then, the present system based upon
that justification cannot be Biblically valid. If it has no present validity, then
the concept of different roles for clergy and laity in fulfilling the gospel
commission based on ordination cannot be right either. Some might ask, “Well,
if not the Aaronic Priesthood, why not the Melchizedekian Priesthood as the foundation
for our modern understanding of clergy and laity?” That is a good question. The
Bible does have an answer, but not necessarily the one we might expect. A
primary difference between the Aaronic and Melchizedekian Priesthoods is the
distinction between exclusiveness and inclusiveness. Let’s look at some New
Testament scripture to see how this is so.
In the book of Acts, after Jesus’ ascension, we find
that the group of believers numbers about 120 (Acts 1:15). They are meeting
regularly together, and on Pentecost, we are told they were all together and
received a special anointing of the Holy Spirit. (See Acts 2:1-4) Prior to this
the Bible does not say that any of the followers of Jesus received the
anointing of the Holy Spirit. We can assume that since Jesus was baptized and
since some of them were with John the Baptist when they left to follow Jesus
that the disciples were baptized as well. However, they had not been ordained yet
as Melchizedekian priests as they had not been anointed with the Holy Spirit.
This is why Jesus told them that they had yet to receive the Holy Spirit (Acts
1:5) Since they had not been ordained, they could not yet ordain others and could
only wait and pray until that ordination came.
Once ordained they could then proclaim the gospel to
others with power and invite others to receive the same ordination they had
received, the Melchizedekian one, the one from the King of Righteousness. Peter
gave this invitation. “Peter replied, ‘Repent
and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness
of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit.’” Acts 2:38,
NIV There was no doubt in Peter’s mind
that the call to repentance was a call to ordination. Baptism, the washing of
repentance, was to be followed by the anointing of the Holy Spirit. There was
no “maybe” in Peter’s statement about this. These two elements would ordain to
ministry those who responded just as he had been ordained.
What’s more, there is no indication that this was an
exclusive ordination. He does not say, for instance, that men who are baptized
will receive the Holy Spirit, but women who are will not. His inclusiveness is
not only backed up by the phrase “every one of you,” but also by his reference
to Joel’s prophecy. He states “Even on my servants, both men and women, I will
pour out my Spirit in those days.” That is very inclusive language. There are
those today who would hide this God of inclusiveness from us. But it is not
just the Pentecostal sermon that presented a message of inclusiveness. God also
revealed it in Peter’s vision of Acts, chapter 10, which shatters not
only the racial exclusiveness but probably gender exclusiveness as well. We are
told that the Centurion Cornelius had gathered his relatives and neighbors to
hear Peter and while Peter was preaching the Holy Spirit anointed them all.
Peter recognizing that they had received half of the anointing of ordination
hastily administered the other half, the washing of baptism. Certainly, among
the relatives of Cornelius there were women as well as men who received this
ordination.
Some might argue the point as to whether or not Peter
truly considered what he was inviting people to was ordination as opposed to
simply the baptism of repentance. However, Peter himself clears this up when he
addresses those who have received the invitation in one of his epistles. He
states “But you are a chosen people, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, God’s
special possession, that you may declare the praises of him who called you out
of darkness into his wonderful light.” 1 Peter 2:9. NIV Note the statement “royal
priesthood.” The Aaronic Priesthood was not a royal priesthood. This could only
be the Melchizedekian (King of Righteousness) Priesthood. Only the ordination
of a king could make them royal. No earthly ordination could do that. For that
reason, Melchizedekian ordination is above any earthly ordination. That
ordination is also inclusive of all who respond and unifies the body of Christ,
whereas earthly ordinations, by nature, emphasize exclusiveness and divide the
body.
It is this same principle that divides between ordained evangelism
and lay witnessing. This is an artificial distinction not found in the Bible. All
are ordained. While the Holy Spirit develops various gifts and callings, the
Spirit does not do so on the basis of some callings being ordained and some
not. He also tends not to so compartmentalize those gifts and callings by
gender as we so often do. Today’s teacher may have something of the pastor in
his or her ministry, and all are apostles in the normal sense of the word of
being messengers sent with the good news of salvation. Not only are the borders
between these ministries not so clearly defined as we make them, in every list
of gifts and ministries there is no distinction offered between ordained and
un-ordained. That is because there is no distinction in the universal
Melchizedekian ordination equivalent to our modern denominationally imposed ordination
distinctions. Perhaps it is time to eliminate those manufactured distinctions
which divide and claim that royal ordination which unites.
Our failure to recognize universal ordination depletes
our ranks when we need all to proclaim the final message of the three angels of
Revelation, chapter 14, to a world in distress. Creating exclusiveness on the
basis of gender alone is like going into battle after shooting over 60 percent
of our army. No wonder we are still struggling to carry the message to the
world. Let’s stop playing the game where we state that God does not pour out
His Spirit abundantly upon all who come to Him without regard to gender or
race. Let’s accept the fact that Peter had to accept with Cornelius and his
relatives and neighbors. God ordains according to His calling and choice, not
ours.
This Commentary is a Service of Still
Waters Ministry
If you
want a paperback copy of the current Sabbath School Bible
Study Quarterly, you may purchase one by clicking here and typing the word
"quarterly" into the search box.