Lucifer, now known as Satan or the Devil, only commits two sins. He is proud, and he lies. And those he influences to oppose the plan and purpose of God are prompted by him or his minions to manifest pride and tell lies.

Whether you are a Gospel minister, a Church planting missionary, or a faithful Church member who seeks to live for, love, and serve God, you will face spiritual opposition in the Christian warfare. But how will the enemy likely come at you? What tactic will be used against you and others?

Perhaps no more straightforward and instructive example of our opponent’s approach to thwart us is found in the Book of Acts, displayed against the first Christian martyr, Stephen. Please turn to the book of Acts, chapter 6.

Stand with me as we read the text, leaving out Stephen’s sermon that runs from Acts 7.1-53. I will read 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.

Stephen was one of the seven men in the Church at Jerusalem selected 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. He was also an effective Gospel witness. Deacons, then and now, are tasked with helping Gospel ministers. When the Gospel minister asks for help, the deacons are the ones who respond first, doing the challenging but necessary things to free Gospel ministers to devote themselves to prayer and the ministry of the Word.

God blessed the effectiveness of Stephen’s ministry, so much so that significant opposition rose against him. Luke’s record of that opposition provides us with a fact pattern to examine the method of opposition used against that spiritually muscular but personally meek Christian man.

We study how Stephen was opposed because the basic method of opposition to truth has remained unchanged throughout history, regardless of region. I have observed this type of opposition as part of a satanic and demonic effort to thwart efforts to evangelize the lost and edify the saints.

Think about that for just a moment. Motivated by pride and committed to lying, the method of opposition to truth has never changed. We review the three stages of opposition that the first Christian martyr faced.

Why do this? Given the rapidly changing landscape on the world stage, which suggests we are deep into the last days, serving God will only become more difficult over time, both in our ministry and in the ministries of our missionaries. I hope that this message will challenge you to recognize the method of opposition when you see it used by the devil’s minions against you, someone in our Church, when you are tempted to employ this method yourself, or when the day comes and an accusation is leveled against one of our missionaries.

Since the method of opposing truth never changes, I urge you to learn how those who preach the truth and stand for it are opposed, and the pattern used even by supposed allies. Why? So that, recognizing the pattern, 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 plans to attack our Church, and possibly you, me, and other members, including our missionaries, before the attack actually takes place, and so you will recognize it unfolding while it is happening. This way, you will be spared the error of being manipulated by dark forces and caught up in irrational emotions but will know that this is what you must face 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 the Jewish people had been waiting for, must die and rise from the dead to fulfill the predictions of the prophets.

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 their pride of position prompted them to vigorously oppose him. The way 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 shared with him their Jewish heritage. 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 the descendants and relatives of former slaves.[2] This is what “libertines” refers to ... those set at liberty. They were Jews who had been hauled away at one time or another to be Roman slaves, but who had somehow gained their freedom and made their way to Jerusalem. Thus, they and their children spoke Greek as their primary language.

The same would apply to the other two synagogues, since we are told they had been established in historically Greek-speaking regions, such as Cyrene, Alexandria, Cilicia, and Asia. Since Stephen was a Greek-speaking Jewish Christian with a Greek name, it all begins to make sense why those particular synagogues were so vehement in their opposition to him, even though they were all Jewish.

Stephen had very likely attended the same synagogues before he trusted Christ as his Savior. He continued to attend the 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 forth into open opposition and antagonism, spreading 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 the synagogue attenders 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 you come from those who know you. Our opposition might even come from those who know us well, and with whom we have had a long acquaintance, such as members of our family.

Next, notice that the substance of the arguments can be gathered from Luke’s use of the word “disputing,” in verse 9. “Disputing,” a form of suzetέoo, means to dispute, to question together, to express forceful differences of opinion without necessarily having a presumed goal of seeking a solution.[3] It can refer to pointless fussing. 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, driven by pride. They were arguing to argue, disagreeing to disagree. If Stephen was correct in his understanding of the Hebrew Scriptures, they must have reasoned, then they would be robbed of the privilege of being respected in their communities. 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. This approach is frequently seen in the political arena, disagreeing to disagree.

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.”

God gave Stephen wisdom and a humble spirit, enabling him to present the truth effectively. Thank God, He raises servants to show His truth 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 itself. It ought to sadden us to think that truth must be specially packaged before it is accepted by so many.

Would that more people accept truth because it is 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 antagonists against truth moved on to stage two in their opposition, which you will recognize. This tactic is still used today in politics and other areas of life. It is a tactic that proves, conclusively, that the opposition has no coherent basis for their position, because they would use it if they had one. What is stage two? What is it that the enemies of the truth resort to when they have no effective means of opposing the truth, when 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 that foul tactic back in the 20th century, used to call it “the politics of personal destruction.” When he employed the tactic, he also cleverly accused his targeted political adversaries 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 is labeled the ad hominem attack because the target is an individual.[5]

This was done in three stages to discredit Stephen. Notice what they did.

First, they suborned men. The opposers found men to tell lies about Stephen.[6] 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 claim that they had heard Stephen speak blasphemous words against Moses and God. A familiar tactic. “I heard so and so say that he ....” The tactic never changes. Recall that the high priest used this approach, 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 humanity. Over and over again, for thousands of years, the messengers of the Gospel have been opposed by individuals who used the same approach. Was this not what Potiphar’s wife did when she lied about Joseph covering up her wicked schemes, in Genesis 39? Of course, it is.

The notorious 19th-century evangelist Charles Finney frequently employed this tactic against preachers who opposed his unorthodox methods. If a faithful village Gospel minister were unwilling to cooperate with Finney’s manipulative approach of evangelism, Finney would libel the man in his community as “an enemy of souls.”[7] Another approach is to subvert and undermine by suggesting that “The preacher said such and such, but what he meant was...”

Why do you think I began recording my sermons scores of years ago? So can you obtain them and listen to them? That is the secondary reason. The primary reason I record my sermons is to prove what I said against the charges of those who would seek to distort my words to use against me. Within the last year or so, I asked several of you to listen to a video in which I was falsely accused of a disparaging remark. Such little tricks of perjury, no matter how slight the distortion of truth may be, are guaranteed to start a fire. It happened to Stephen, to the Apostle Paul, to Martin Luther, to John Calvin, to Jonathan Edwards, to Charles Spurgeon ... and it happens today, at home and abroad.

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 while it was the people who were stirred up, 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 a fire among those who do not truly understand what is happening, who were not there to witness the event firsthand. Then you mix those uninformed folks up, so they are completely confused. What will happen is this: You 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 ends up ignoring what Stephen actually said, even though they know what he said. They display fake outrage.

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 in any age.

We had a Church split before some of you here were even born. The real origin of it 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 as a result of the meetings you call?” He left the Church, taking his family with him, as the split he ignited led to a reduction in 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 be allowed to take place. About such things, James wrote,

“Behold, how great a matter a little fire kindleth!”[8]

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 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 clever one nonetheless. The 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 was a piece of propaganda worthy of any professional political strategist. Consider 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. Still, they took what he said completely out of the context in which he initially spoke and intentionally warped their meaning to damage him. They lied by telling almost the whole truth about what Stephen had said. Almost the truth. Does that sound familiar? Telling nearly the truth is what makes countering lies so challenging.

I illustrate. A Gospel preacher is opposed to homosexual practice as much as he is to every other sexual sin, so the media portrays him as homophobic and someone who supposedly hates homosexuals and is a hate-monger. The same is true regarding transgender individuals. Or a preacher is accused of not keeping someone’s confidences, when it turns out that his wife betrayed his confidences, and the pastor was blamed for it. Even though he knows his wife is a liar, even though she has been caught lying behind people’s backs on numerous occasions, Wimpy Magee chooses to permit the bad 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

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 the way 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 in error. Knowing that they had not yet silenced him by ruining his reputation and being outraged at the piercing and cutting truth which he spoke so eloquently in Acts 7.1-53, the opposers of truth went into a fit of fury. They took steps to ensure 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 your 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.

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. Perhaps you are such an opponent of the truth of the Gospel.

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.

Granted, few people are murdered in the United States for preaching the Gospel. The main reason, of course, is that very few preachers actually 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 at all. This is because humanity’s sinful nature has remained unchanged throughout 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, opposing the truth.

Most individuals, however, are too timid 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 of an individual who is seeking to bring you to Christ? 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. Regardless of the method employed, this approach constitutes character assassination. It is stage two in opposing the truth.

Then, when you walk away from the person 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 sermon, you have moved to stage three.

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 attempt to silence us, 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 the auditorium. Plant the seeds of distraction before worship. The details vary, but the goal is the same. Make it so that you or someone else is not inclined to listen to the ministry of God’s Word.

Of course, this can ultimately be accomplished by leaving the Church, staying home from a Church service, or taking some other clever approach. 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 most essential characteristics. When you observe this method being used, or when you become aware of this method being used, the person using this method has self-identified as the enemy of truth.

Let me reiterate. First, there is an attempt to argue. When that is unsuccessful, because the facts are not in their favor, an attempt at character assassination is made. And the third part? Assure silence by either refusing to listen anymore or by leaving.

Let us learn from this. Let me give you some points to help you avoid being drawn into anything you should not be involved in:

First, never allow yourself to be drawn into an argument with someone who is clearly lost. Proverbs 13.10 says, “Only by pride cometh contention.” Contending for the faith is not the same as arguing. Arguing, contention in the context of Proverbs 13.10, is the result of pride and is just plain wrong.
Second, and this is for you lost folks, Proverbs 3.30: “Strive not with a man without cause, if he hath done thee no harm.” Why dispute with a person who has no desire to hurt you, but to see you blessed of God? Why oppose someone who supposedly introduced you to Christ or who ministers to your children? Or why get nasty with someone who only wants to see you come to Christ?

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 fundamental 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, 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 seek out conflicts? Oh, heavens, no. Never go looking for a fight. I hate fighting worse than anything in the world. However, when you are doing what a Christian is supposed to do, the fight will occasionally come looking for you.

If it has not happened to you before, 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 not believers in Christ. 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, or 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 is preached from the Bible. Please understand that, ultimately, your argument is not with any preacher, but with the One Who wrote the Scriptures used with you, God.

Second, character assassination. Maybe you will try to discredit the message by looking at a personal flaw of the messenger, 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 own position, not its 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. Focus on your smartphone. Distract yourself in some way. Some leave and decide not to come back. Kids often play with the person next to them. Mothers unnecessarily tend to their children to distract themselves.

We had one person who could never sit through a service without having to leave and blow his nose or visit the restroom at a crucial time in the message. Every time.

Why not just stop? Since you are here, 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 out 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] Eugene Ehrlich, Amo, Amas, Amat And More, (New York: Harper & Row, Publishers, 1985), page 22.

[6] Ibid.

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

[8] James 3.5

The Method Of Opposition