For as long as I can remember, I have listened to preachers who have hammered out the idea that every Christian is called to be a witness for Christ.
'Not all believers are evangelists, but we are all witnesses,' is the message that has sounded forth. The picture that such teaching conveys is of Christians here, there and everywhere striving to create opportunities to share the gospel with everyone.
The fact that the reality is very different is frequently lamented. Such teaching produces widespread feelings of guilt among evangelical Christians. They feel they ought to make a better job of being witnesses for the Lord.
But are we right to say that witnessing is the calling of every believer?
The key verse which is used to defend the every-Christian-a-witness theory is Acts 1.8, where the risen Lord says to his disciples: 'You shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.'
I am assuming here that 'witness' means speaking. Some people refer to witnessing by life as well as by lip, but I think that this is to misuse Acts 1.8. A witness is someone who speaks. The word is borrowed from the law courts and obviously a silent witness would be useless when a man is on trial.
It was to the apostles that the words of Acts 1.8 were spoken. Between the resurrection and the ascension (v.2), Jesus had private meeting with the eleven. He gave them instructions on the work of the kingdom following his return to heaven. Verse 8 contains his final words before his departure.
The unfolding story in Acts suggests that it was the apostles who fulfilled the charge of witnessing. Nowhere are we told about multitudes of individual Christians who witnessed for Christ. It is not legitimate to extend the relevance of Acts 1.8 to every Christian.
Examples
This conclusion may be supported by an examination of the use of the 'witness' family of words later in the Acts of the Apostles. Usually it is quite clear that its application is limited to the apostles. Here are a few examples.
Peter's words in Acts 1.22 show that he did not assume that every Christian was by definition a witness; it was something that one particular individual must now become, and the only ones eligible were those who had accompanied the Lord and the twelve throughout his ministry, and had been witnesses specifically of the resurrection. A similar point is made in Acts 4.33. In Acts 10.39-42, Peter explains that the witnesses are a specific group, namely those who physically spent time in the presence of the risen Lord on earth prior to the ascension.
In the final chapters of Acts, the apostle Paul is frequently described as a witness. It is clear from Acts 22.15 and 26.16 that the qualification for witness of having seen the risen Lord applies to him, albeit that he was exceptional.
These references, then, limit the use of witness-terminology to the apostles. There are four texts (Acts 2.32; 3.15; 5.32; 13.31) which are read by a few commentators as having a wider relevance. However, no commentator gives all four verses a wider relevance, and there is no general agreement as to which ought to be given larger significance. It is probably right, therefore, in the light of the normal usage in Acts, to limit all four to the apostles.
There is one other place where the Greek word for 'witness' is used in Acts, at 22.20. Here it is translated 'martyr'. This instance is of particular interest, since it is the only time that the word is obviously used in connection with someone who was not one of the apostles: it refers to Stephen. Now Stephen was one of a relatively small group of men of whom we read, who, while not themselves apostles, emerged alongside the apostles as the preachers of the primitive church. Others included Philip, Barnabus, John Mark, Silas, Timothy and Titus. These were the first generation of preachers who were not apostles, and it is in succession to them that today's preachers are sent. The interesting thing is that the word 'witness' is used of one of their number. This suggests that, if we are to apply Acts 1.8 to our contemporary situation, it is, at most, to preachers that it should be applied. 'Witness' means 'preaching'.
This suggests that is a misreading of Acts 1.8 to apply its command to Christians universally and indiscriminately. Those who gave spoken witness to Christ were a tiny minority. Nowhere do we read of thousands of people witnessing for Christ. There are only two occasions in Acts when we might gain the impression that all the Christians took part in speaking to unbelievers. However, even this may be a misimpression.
1. On the Day of Pentecost, all the visitors to Jerusalem heard in their own tongues all the first 120 Christians speaking the wonderful works of Christ (Acts 2.4-11). However, it may not be that the believers were intending to speak to the crowd. It is likely that the Spirit gave utterance to words of praise to God, but this praise was so exuberant that everyone could eavesdrop on it. When the time came to preach, to bear witness, the responsibility was Peter's (Acts 2.14-40).
2. Acts 8.1-4 and 11.19 tell us that after Stephen's death, the Jerusalem church was scattered and that 'those who were scattered went everywhere preaching the word'. This is sometimes read as proof that in the evangelism of the early church, the witness of all the ordinary Christians was the most important element. However, it may not mean that every individual believer participated in the scattered preaching. It is possible that the church was scattered in groups and that they went everywhere preaching because every scattered group included a preacher or two.
The positive question
What I am suggesting, then, is that it may be a misreading of Acts 1.8 to apply it to every individual Christian and to create a burden of guilt in the process. Witnessing is actually a way of describing the work of the preacher, and in today's generation it is still God-appointed preachers who have the responsibility of continuing the work of witness for Christ.
Having asserted what ordinary believers are not called to do, we must now consider the positive question as to what they are called to do, and what their pastors should be saying to them if they should not be telling them to witness. So I turn to two passages in 1 Peter 3.
1. In verses 1-6, the instruction to Christian wives with unconverted husbands is to live out a life which is summed up as good conduct, in the hope that their husbands might be won 'without a word'. It is often assumed that this is unusual advice given for an exceptional situation.
However, it may be that this is not an exceptional instruction, but rather as the application to one particular situation of a general principle, namely that believers are to seek to win the lost without a word by good conduct, whatever that may mean in practice in one context or another. For those who are not called to be preachers, their priority in life, in all the circles in which they move, is not witnessing, but godly living.
2. In verse 15, Peter says: 'Sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defence to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you.' The implication of this verse is that as the believer acknowledges the sovereignty of God, even in a world where suffering is to be endured for righteousness' sake, the result will be a life which is provocatively hopeful.
The atmosphere of the unbelieving world around us is predominantly one of despair. We can see despair in the faces of our neighbours; we can hear it in their tone of voice; we can read it in their gestures. In such a world, the calling of ordinary believers is to live in such a way that they display hopefulness. Peter reckons that such a life will raise questions from unbelievers. They will be able to observe in Christians a very different outlook on life. In a world of despair, hopefulness will stand out.
The Lord is God
Pastors are not to instruct their people to witness. They are so to proclaim the sovereignty of God, his amazing grace in Christ and the certainty of final salvation, that their people are filled with hope. Hope comes from the confidence that even in a world of sin, the Lord is still God; hope stems from the assurance that for all the trials of the here and now, heaven will be truly wonderful; and hope sets believers far apart from non-Christians. The priority in life for the ordinary church member is not witnessing but hope, and hope will give birth to good conduct.
To be sure, such a life of hopefulness will be provocative; it may sometimes prompt a question. Then we should all be ready to answer and explain. But there is no pressure on every individual Christian to feel that they must be trying to create opportunities all over the place to speak to all and sundry for Christ. That is the task of preachers.
Some time ago, I tried out this reading of Acts 1.8 on my own church. I can still remember the thrill which I felt as a godly lady expressed, with a radiant face, the feeling of a burden being lifted as she listened. It is my prayer that this article will be used of God to lift more burdens from godly saints.
Jonathan Bayes
Home
Archives
Subscriptions
Adverts
Find a church
About us
Contact us
Site Map
Printable