Calvary Road Baptist Church

“THE METHOD OF OPPOSITION”

Acts 6.9-15; 7.54-60 

Seeking to bring people to Jesus Christ and representing the Savior is the business of this Church and each and every one of our members. Working together to accomplish the goal of obeying Christ’s Great Commission, we engage in a spiritual enterprise that meets with strong and clever spiritual opposition from time to time.

We will examine the human side of spiritual opposition to seeing sinners saved and serving God. Perhaps no clearer and instructive example of such opposition found in the Book of Acts is displayed in the life of the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Consider Acts 6.9-15 and Acts 7.54-60: 

9 Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.

10 And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.

11 Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.

12 And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council,

13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.

15 And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel. 

54 When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. 

Those of you familiar with the Book of Acts should remember that Stephen was one of the seven men in the Church at Jerusalem chosen to be a deacon, literally a servant, to perform routine tasks that were taking up the valuable time of those called by God to the ministry of the Word. Those men then, as with deacons of our day, are tasked with helping Gospel ministers. When the Gospel minister asks for help, the deacons are the ones who respond first, willing to do hard but necessary things so Gospel ministers can devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word.

You will also remember that God blessed the effectiveness of Stephen’s ministry so much so that great opposition rose up against him. Luke’s record of Stephen’s opposition provides us with a fact pattern I would like to examine of the method of opposition used against that spiritually muscular but personally meek Christian man. The reason we are going to study how Stephen was opposed is that the basic method of opposition to truth, and the basic method of opposing God’s servants, has never changed throughout history and because I have seen this type of opposition even here in our Church, as part of a satanic effort to thwart our efforts to evangelize the lost and edify the saints.

Think about what I said for just a moment. The method of opposition to truth has never changed. Looking at the experience of the first Christian martyr, we are going to review the three stages of resistance he faced. Why do this? As the rapidly changing landscape of our culture and the world stage suggests, we are deep into the last days, and serving God will only become more complex over time.

I hope this message will challenge you to recognize the method of opposition that never really changes when you see it used by the devil’s minions against someone in our Church or when you are tempted to employ it. Since the method of opposing truth never changes, I urge you to learn how those who preach the truth and stand for the truth are opposed, even by supposed allies. Why? So that, recognizing it, you will be able to resist the evil influences of those who oppose the truth that you hopefully stand for. Simply put: So you will know how the enemy will attack our Church, and me, possibly you, and other members, before the attack takes place, and so you will recognize it while it is taking place.

This way, you will not wallow in doubt, guilt, and self-recrimination but know that this happens when you do right. 

THE FIRST STAGE OF OPPOSING THE TRUTH IS BY ARGUMENTATION 

In Acts 6.9-10, we learn that Stephen taught in the synagogues. He taught the truth concerning the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus the Messiah ... as predicted by the Old Testament prophets. As Stephen led men and women through the Hebrew Scriptures, he showed them how the Messiah, Who those Jewish people had been waiting for, must die and be raised from the dead to fulfill the prophets’ predictions.

As you might expect, the opponents of truth did not agree with the conclusions Stephen drew from the Old Testament about the Lord Jesus Christ and vigorously opposed him. How they opposed him, remember, was by arguing against his conclusions. There are three things I want you to notice:

First, notice the source of these arguments against Stephen. This is seen in Acts 6.9: 

“Then there arose certain of the synagogue, which is called the synagogue of the Libertines, and Cyrenians, and Alexandrians, and of them of Cilicia and of Asia, disputing with Stephen.” 

According to Luke’s account, primary opposition arose from three synagogues in Jerusalem, the first of which was designated “the synagogue of the Libertines,” the second comprised of those from Cyrene and Alexandria (this is North Africa), and the third was attended by those from Cilicia and Asia (what is today southern Turkey).[1]

There are several reasons why Stephen was opposed by men from those synagogues, even though they were his fellow countrymen. Since the first of the synagogues was called “the synagogue of the Libertines,” we know that those who attended it were either ex-slaves or were the descendants and relatives of former slaves.[2] This is what “libertines” refers to ... those set at liberty. They were Jews or children of Jews who had been hauled away at one time or another to be Roman slaves but who had somehow gained their liberty and had worked their way to Jerusalem. Thus they spoke Greek as their primary language. The same would apply to the other two synagogues since we are told they had been born in historically Greek-speaking regions such as Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. When you remember that Stephen was a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian with a Greek name, it all begins to fit together why these particular synagogues were so vigorous in their opposition to him, even though they were all Jewish.

Stephen had likely attended these same synagogues before he trusted Christ as his Savior. He continued to attend these synagogues so that he might teach others the truth and bring them to Jesus Christ. Not so that he might “straighten the synagogues out,” as so many foolish professing Christians try to do when they supposedly “get saved” and stay in Christ-denying denominational churches or synagogues that they ought to flee from. It was likely at one of the weekly worship services in one of those synagogues that the smoldering resentment toward Stephen for teaching the truth burst into open opposition and antagonism and spread to the other synagogues. So, the argument was likely put forth by acquaintances and perhaps even friends Stephen had known before his conversion.

If you examine the map section of your Bible, you will notice that in that area known as Cilicia, where some of those synagogue attendees had come from, was the city of Tarsus. Who do we know was from Tarsus? Right. Saul of Tarsus. Is it not interesting to consider that the man who was later known as the Apostle Paul, that brilliant young student of the Mosaic Law under the tutelage of the great Gamaliel, may have lost the first theological debate of his life to a Christian named Stephen ... who he may have known from back home in Tarsus?

So much for the source of the arguments. Do not be surprised if arguments against Christians come from those who know us. Our opposition might even come from those who know us well and with whom we have been long acquainted.

Next, notice that the substance of the arguments can be gathered from Luke’s use of the word “disputing” in verse 9. The term “disputing,” a form of suzhtέw, means to dispute, to question together, to express forceful differences of opinion without necessarily having a presumed goal of seeking a solution.[3] In other words, Stephen’s opponents in the synagogue were not trying to understand whether or not what he said was true, according to God’s Word. They were opposed to the truth for selfish reasons or pride-related reasons. They were arguing to argue, disagreeing to disagree.

If Stephen was right in his understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, they must have reasoned, then they would be robbed of the privilege of being respected teachers. Because if Stephen was right then they, of course, had to be wrong.[4] So they resorted to debating Stephen, trying to trip him up, trying to confuse him, trying to find a point of weakness or inconsistency in his doctrine.

Thirdly, notice that the strength of Stephen’s assertions proved too much for the opponents of truth. This is seen in verse 10: 

“And they were not able to resist the wisdom and the spirit by which he spake.” 

Stephen possessed wisdom and a humble spirit, which enabled him to present the truth effectively. Thank God He raises up servants to give His truth in such a way as Stephen did. This is because people are as likely to respond to how truth is presented as they are to the reality of the truth that is presented to them. It ought to sadden us to think that truth must be specially packaged before it is accepted by so many. Would to God, more people would accept the truth because it happens to be true and not demand that it be packaged in a manner that appeals to the flesh. Failing in their attempts to oppose the truth by arguing against Stephen in the synagogues, the opposers of truth moved on to stage two in their opposition to truth.

What is stage two? I am sure you will recognize stage two. It is a tactic still used today in politics and in other areas of life. It is a tactic which proves, conclusively, that the opposition has no coherent basis for their position, because they would use it if they had it. What is it the enemies of the truth will resort to when they have no effective means of opposing it, when the truth is not on their side? 

STAGE TWO OF THE ENEMY’S OPPOSITION TO THE TRUTH IS FOUND IN VERSES 11-14. THE ENEMIES OF STEPHEN’S LORD TURNED THEIR GUNS ON HIM AND BEGAN TO ASSASSINATE HIS CHARACTER. 

A desperate politician resorts to name-calling. President Clinton, perhaps the best practitioner of this foul tactic in the 20th century, used to call it “the politics of personal destruction.” When he employed this tactic, he also cleverly accused his targeted political adversary of doing it to him. Typically, when the enemies of truth can do nothing else, they will attack not the truth itself but the messenger of truth. This was done in three stages to discredit Stephen. Notice what they did.

First, they suborned men. This means the opposers found men to tell lies about Stephen.[5] This is seen in verse 11: 

“Then they suborned men, which said, We have heard him speak blasphemous words against Moses, and against God.” 

They stooped so low as to lie and falsely claimed that they had heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and God. Is that not a familiar tactic? “I heard so and so say that he ....” The tactic never changes. Recall that this approach was used by the high priest Caiaphas against the Savior in Matthew 26.59-60: 

59 Now the chief priests, and elders, and all the council, sought false witness against Jesus, to put him to death;

60 But found none: yea, though many false witnesses came, yet found they none. At the last came two false witnesses. 

The approach is as old as the human race. Over and over again, for thousands of years, the messengers of the Gospel have been opposed by individuals who have used the same tactics. Was this not what Potiphar’s wife did when she lied about Joseph to cover up her wicked schemes in Genesis 39? Of course, it is. Even the notorious Charles Finney used the tactic against preachers who opposed his unscriptural methods. If a faithful village Gospel minister and pastor were unwilling to cooperate with Finney’s manipulative evangelism approach, Finney would libel him as “an enemy of souls.”[6]

Another approach is to subvert and undermine by suggesting that “The man of God said such and such, but what he meant was ....” Why do you think I began recording my sermons scores of years ago? So you can obtain them and listen to them? That was a secondary reason. The primary reason I recorded my sermons was to prove what I said against the charges of those seeking to distort my words to use against me. Such a little trick of perjury, no matter how slight the distortion of truth may be, is guaranteed to start a fire. It happened to Stephen, the Apostle Paul, Martin Luther, John Calvin, Jonathan Edwards, Charles Spurgeon ... and it happens today.

Having sparked a few embers, the opponents of truth then fan the embers until a fire breaks out. This is done by stirring up the people, verse 12: 

“And they stirred up the people, and the elders, and the scribes, and came upon him, and caught him, and brought him to the council.” 

Notice that those who were stirred up were the people, but those who reacted were the elders and the scribes.

To oppose the truth in front of a crowd of people, you must first kindle and fan the flames of fire among those who do not know what is going on, and who were not there to witness the event first-hand. Then you mix those uninformed folks up, so they are completely confused. This will happen: You will get a reaction from those who were there, who did hear Stephen’s words, who know that he did not blaspheme God or Moses. However, they are reacting to the people who have been stirred up by those opposed to the truth, and the manipulated crowd ignores what Stephen said, even though they know what he said.

Do you see how Satan uses ignorance of the facts to achieve his ends? This is spiritual seduction. None of this could have happened to Stephen if those people who were stirred up had instead replied, “Hold on a second. Even if Stephen is wrong, as you say, this is not the way to deal with it. There is a right way to go about this.” However, such presence of mind is a rare commodity at any age.

We had a Church split before some of you here were even born. The actual origin was a meeting called by a guy who should have known better. When I approached him, he said “I only called a meeting.” I then pointed out to him, “Have you noticed how often preachers are fired and splits are started due to the meetings you call?” He left the Church, taking his large family with him, as the split he ignited but did not lead reduced our attendance by about two-thirds. Our attendance has never since then reached the numbers we were at when the split was ignited. Some conversations should never take place. About such things, James wrote, 

“Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!”[7] 

Once the officials in Jerusalem responded to the pressure of the crowd they had stirred up, false witnesses were set up to guarantee Stephen’s downfall. Verses 13-14: 

13 And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law:

14 For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us. 

Of course, they made a completely false charge against Stephen. They said that he was blasphemous in verse 13: 

“And set up false witnesses, which said, This man ceaseth not to speak blasphemous words against this holy place, and the law.” 

A complete fabrication, but a very clever one. Their supposed “proof” of their charge was what Stephen had said about the destruction of the Temple and the changing of the customs of the people, verse 14: 

“For we have heard him say, that this Jesus of Nazareth shall destroy this place, and shall change the customs which Moses delivered us.” 

This is a piece of propaganda worthy of any professional political strategist.

Listen to what the Savior originally said and the evangelist’s explanation in John 2.19-21: 

19 Jesus answered and said unto them, Destroy this temple, and in three days I will raise it up.

20 Then said the Jews, Forty and six years was this temple in building, and wilt thou rear it up in three days?

21 But he spake of the temple of his body. 

Several years afterward, Stephen’s comments were related to Christ’s sacrifice. He was not referring to destroying the Temple at all. The enemies of the Gospel took some of the words Stephen had said, but they took what he said entirely out of the context in which he initially said them and intentionally warped their meaning to damage him.

In reality, those men lied by telling almost the whole truth about what Stephen had said. Almost the truth. Does that sound familiar? Telling almost the truth is what makes countering lies so challenging. I illustrate. A Gospel preacher is opposed to homosexual practice as much as he is every other sexual sin, so he is portrayed by the media as homophobic and someone who supposedly hates homosexuals and is a hate-monger. Or a preacher is accused of not keeping a member’s confidences when it turns out the member’s wife betrayed his confidences, and the pastor was blamed for it. Even though he knows his wife is a liar, she has been caught lying behind people’s backs on numerous occasions. Wimpy Magee chooses to permit the evil report about the pastor to be repeated without correction. Is that not incredible? 

THE FINAL STAGE OF THE ENEMY’S OPPOSITION TO THE TRUTH IS TO ASSURE HIS SILENCE 

Admittedly, character assassination is usually effective in opposing the truth. Discredit the messenger, it is reasoned, and you discredit the message. We know that is not credibly true, but it is still how most people think. However, character assassination did not succeed in Stephen’s case. Read verse 15 with me: 

“And all that sat in the council, looking stedfastly on him, saw his face as it had been the face of an angel.” 

The council knew Stephen’s character was above reproach. When they questioned him throughout Acts chapter 7, he did not defend himself. Instead, he gave Biblical proof that his doctrine was correct and theirs was an error. Knowing that they had not yet silenced him by ruining his reputation and being outraged at the piercing and cutting truth he spoke so eloquently in Acts 7.1-53, the opposers of truth went into a fit of fury and took steps to assure his silence forever.

Notice why those men acted the way they did, Acts 7.54: 

“When they heard these things, they were cut to the heart, and they gnashed on him with their teeth.” 

They were convicted of their sins. That is why they wanted Stephen silenced. This happens in one way or another whenever people are convicted of their sins. Cut to the heart by the truth about your sin and guilt before God. However, instead of repenting, those men wanted to stifle the convicting message. Is that not the way it is with the reprobate? Revenge instead of repentance. Damnation instead of deliverance. Plugging your ears or covering your eyes instead of confronting the truth.

Verses 55-60 show us that they wanted to continue their opposition to truth. They would do anything to assure Stephen’s silence ... even if it meant killing him: 

55 But he, being full of the Holy Ghost, looked up stedfastly into heaven, and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing on the right hand of God,

56 And said, Behold, I see the heavens opened, and the Son of man standing on the right hand of God.

57 Then they cried out with a loud voice, and stopped their ears, and ran upon him with one accord,

58 And cast him out of the city, and stoned him: and the witnesses laid down their clothes at a young man’s feet, whose name was Saul.

59 And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God, and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

60 And he kneeled down, and cried with a loud voice, Lord, lay not this sin to their charge. And when he had said this, he fell asleep. 

Perhaps you are such an opponent of the truth of the Gospel. Do you see the never-changing pattern that is used to oppose the truth? It is the same method today as was used 2000 years ago. Nothing changes.

You first argue against the truth, out loud or in the recesses of your mind. If your arguments against the truth do not prevail? Then you try to assassinate the character of the person presenting the truth. Is his character above reproach? You will then resort to assuring the silence of the messenger of truth in some way.

Few people are murdered in the United States for preaching the Gospel. The main reason is that very few preachers preach the Gospel in the United States. Presenting the facts of the death, burial, and resurrection of Jesus Christ without properly setting those facts within the context of God’s righteous demands is not necessarily preaching the Gospel.

In those cases where the Gospel is preached, the opposition’s tactics have not changed. This is because humanity’s sinful nature has not changed through the centuries. Sinners are as utterly depraved and without love for God and enslaved to sin as any lost person who has ever lived.

When the claims of Christ from God’s Word are preached, have you ever argued against the conclusions instead of opening your mind and heart to accept the truth of what is said? If so, you are at stage one of opposing the truth.

Most individuals, however, are too cowardly and insufficiently honest to go so far as to argue out loud against the truth. They remain silent, putting up their arguments in their mind, where they will face no opposition, perhaps daydreaming, all the while saying nothing out loud, waiting to make snarky comments on the way home after Church.

Have you ever resorted to arguing against the truth an individual who is seeking to bring you to Christ presents? Perhaps you have moved on to addressing the preacher or teacher’s many personal shortcomings. So-called Christian hypocrites you know, or the charlatan preachers you are aware of, are also mentioned. No matter how it is accomplished, this approach is character assassination. It is stage two in opposing the truth. Then, when you walk away from the person who is trying to bring you to Christ when you do not want to talk about it, when your mind wanders during the preaching of the Gospel, or when you constantly check text messages and Instagram during the preaching, you have moved to stage three.

I don’t know what public schools do, but our Christian school collects students’ phones during the school day so youngsters will not succumb to the temptation to zero in on their smartphones instead of paying attention in class. Do parents let their children keep smartphones in their possession during Church? If they do, do they check to make sure their kids are not silencing the preacher as he communicates the Gospel? When you do that, when anyone does that, you silence me, or you silence that Gospel minister who seeks your conversion.

You have done enough to ensure that you do not have to listen to me or that other person anymore. Why not turn the phone off? Why not leave it in the car? While you are at it, why not refrain from discussing football, basketball, baseball, guns, golf, or hot rods before Church, so you don’t distract the young and the restless who have a difficult enough time paying attention without a flurry of other distractions? Why not talk about God, the Bible, or make mention of answers to prayer before Church?

You, who are Christians here today, have you noticed how faithful preachers and Christian witnesses are attacked? If the enemies of truth cannot argue with our doctrine, they assassinate our character. If that does not work, they try to assure our silence, using the most clever and sophisticated techniques. How will enemies work to silence a preacher?

There are many ways to silence a preacher short of killing him. Get him fired. Refuse to attend the service when he preaches. Distract yourself if you are in Church. Plant the seeds of distraction before Church. The details vary, but the goal is the same. Make it so you or someone else is not inclined to listen to him minister God’s Word. Of course, ultimately, this can be accomplished by leaving the Church, staying home from a Church service, or some other clever move. And does not the way someone leaves the Church usually tell the story?

If you are a real demon tool, you work to discredit the mature Christian witness or preacher so others will not seek his counsel, so others will not make use of him as a guide to Christ, so others will not trust him. If you know someone who does that, then you are acquainted with a real viper. The method of opposition to truth has never and will never change in its essential characteristics. When you see this method being used on me, or when you become aware of this method being used on you or some other Christian, the person who is using this method has identified himself as the enemy of truth.

When our Church split started many years ago, this pattern was used. First, there was an attempt to argue. When that was unsuccessful, because the facts were not on their side, an attempt at character assassination was mounted. And the third part? Assure my silence by either refusing to listen to me anymore or leaving. Let us learn from this. Let me give you some pointers to help you avoid being drawn into anything you should not be involved in: 

If you humble yourself in the sight of God, you will not argue as Stephen’s enemies argued with him. If you leave people alone who mean you no harm, you will not assassinate the character of others, as Stephen’s enemies tried to assassinate his character. What if you are the one on the receiving end of the opposition? What do you do when you are attacked? Well before you are attacked, make sure that any attack that comes against you will be the result of opposition to your position, not opposition to your disposition.

Strive to make sure people are not offended by your personality, even if they are offended by the truth of your doctrine. And be eager to ask the forgiveness of anyone you have sinned against. That done, do not back down when faced with a spiritual assault. The real difference between a Stephen and a tough-talking individual who shows cowardice in the face of the enemy is what happens when the shooting starts.

If you enter the conflict right with God, the opposition does not mean things have gone wrong. Opposition means that things have gone right. We are, after all, in a spiritual war! Does this mean Christians should go looking for fights? Oh, heavens no. Never go looking for a fight. I hate worse than anything in the world to fight. However, when you are doing what a Christian is supposed to do, the fight will occasionally come looking for you.

Suppose it has not happened to you before. In that case, you now know what shape it will likely take ... because, with a wrinkle here and a slight modification there, the method of opposition will be the same: argumentation first, character assassination second, and third, somehow assure silence.

I now close with these final words to those of you here who are unsaved. Think about the Gospel message. The Bible says that you are dead in trespasses and sins and that you need to be saved. If you do not come to Christ, one, two, or all three of the following things will happen:

First, you will argue. Maybe not out loud. Perhaps your argumentation will be in your heart and mind, disagreeing with what I have preached from the Bible. Please understand that, ultimately, your argument is not with me but with the One Who wrote the Scriptures I have quoted, God.

Second, character assassination. Maybe you will try to discredit the message by looking at a personal flaw of mine, seeing me as being inconsistent, or thinking of that hypocrite preacher or lying Christian, you know. Remember, assassinating the messenger’s character reveals the weakness of your position, not it is strength. You still have not refuted the truth of God’s claims that you are a sinner in need of the only Savior, Jesus Christ.

Finally, there is the attempt to silence. Fidget during the sermon. Think about something else. Play with your smartphone. Distract yourself in some way. Leave and decide not to come back. Kids will play with the person next to them. Mothers will unnecessarily tend to their children to distract themselves. We had one guy who could never sit through a service but had to go out and blow his nose or visit the restroom every single service at a crucial time in the message. Every time.

Friend, why not just stop? Respond to the truth. Come and talk to me and let me introduce you to my Savior. If you do not turn to Christ, God will pour His wrath on you.

__________

[1] See footnote for Acts 6.9 from John MacArthur, The MacArthur Study Bible, (Nashville: Word Publishing, 1997), page 1644.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Rogers, Jr., Cleon L. and Rogers III, Cleon L., The New Linguistic and Exegetical Key To The Greek New Testament, (Grand Rapids, MI: ZondervanPublishingHouse, 1998), page 241.

[4] Law of Excluded Middle: In logic, the law of excluded middle states that for every proposition, either this proposition or its negation is true. It is one of the so-called three laws of thought, along with the law of noncontradiction, and the law of identity.

[5] Ibid.

[6] Iain H. Murray, Revival & Revivalism, (Carlisle, PA: The Banner of Truth Trust, 1994), pages 281-282, 290-291.

[7] James 3.5

 

Question? Comment?

Would you like to contact Dr. Waldrip about this sermon? Fill out the form below to send him an email. Thank you.