"Now then, you and the Sanhedrin petition the commander to bring him before you on the pretext of wanting more accurate information about his case. We are ready to kill him before he gets here."
Acts 23:15
Sadly, deception is prevalent in mankind’s daily conduct. Children deceive their parents. Spouses deceive each other. Public servants deceive their constituents. Criminals deceive law enforcement officials. The biblical examples are just as plentiful as the common day ones. Satan deceived Adam and Eve, the original man and woman (Genesis 3). Abraham deceived Abimelech, a pagan king (Genesis 20). Jacob deceived Isaac, his father (Genesis 27). King David deceived Uriah the Hittite, a faithful soldier (2 Samuel 11). Ananias and Sapphira deceived the apostles, God’s evangelical ambassadors (Acts 5). What makes this reflection so distressing is how defiant this etiquette is in comparison to God’s holy character. The Lord is not a liar. He does not speak with a false tongue. He is pure, sincere, and the unending source of truth. And He desires that we emulate Him.
Although I have performed my fair share of deceitful misdeeds, I have been on the receiving end of many as well. One such encounter I remember vividly because my removal from a ministry position was aided, in large part, by the betrayal of a person I was mentoring at the time. I had been serving as music minister for a small church on the outskirts of Oklahoma City for almost two years when I was introduced to a visitor after a Sunday morning worship service. The gentleman informed me that he worked in the oil and petroleum business with a member of our congregation. That member, who happened to be our church’s praise band drummer, invited this man and his family to attend a worship service at our church when he learned that they were looking for a new Christian fellowship. The newcomer’s family was a part of a spiritual flock that had recently undergone a rift. Because of broken hearts and numerous differences with the direction the church was heading, his family decided to move on.
The gentleman made a strong first impression. He possessed immense energy and hungered for a servant-oriented role in the music ministry. Not long after our initial conversation, his family joined our church. I met with the gentleman a short while later. It was obvious this man was passionate for worship and that he yearned to help inspire others to praise God. Furthermore, he had a commanding singing voice and was comfortable with a wide variety of range and song styles. When I took into account his heart, spirit, and music skills, I saw no reason to hold him back from participating in our church’s worship ministry.
I initially gave the gentleman a rotating spot in the praise vocal team. Because our church had a substantial amount of quality singers, we alternated months the singers were involved in the praise team for Sunday morning worship services. The individual gladly accepted the offer and became one of my most reliable participants thereafter. He was consistently early to rehearsal. He always displayed a gracious, positive attitude. He never complained nor was disruptive in practice. It was truly enjoyable to be around him.
Within a few months, the gentleman asked if he could share an idea he had for the forthcoming Easter service, which was several months out. He wanted our church to consider departing from the standard Easter cantata format. His vision was to select Christ or cross-centered contemporary praise songs and fuse them with personally-written narration, along with Scripture passages highlighting Christ’s path to Calvary. Because I had never thought about incorporating this concept before, I told him the individual I needed some time to assess it and pray about it. Within a few weeks, God assured me that this was a plan we should put in motion.The gentleman invested a significant amount of effort into crafting the Easter worship service. Once it was complete, I reviewed the song list, drama script, and the biblical verses he had recommended. Although I did revise some of the presentation, all my changes were minor. The well-constructed service was impressive. I thanked the man profusely for his contribution. As a result of the meaningful Easter service, I sought to find more responsibilities for the man I viewed as a worship protégé. Therefore, we met throughout the following weeks to co-develop orders of worship.
One Saturday not long after the gentleman and I embarked upon this routine, I received a phone call from my pastor, who was evidently distressed. He announced that he was irritated about the songs that had been chosen for the upcoming service. I was caught off guard because this issue had never surfaced before, even though the pastor and I had operated alongside each other successfully for a little while. Since I have already addressed the fallout from the exchange with the pastor in a book I wrote (Chapter Two of Love Has Come: A Twenty-Eight Day Journey Through the Gospel of Matthew), I will cut to the chase of what I later discovered was occurring. My music ministry pupil was going to the pastor during the week and abetting in the questioning and criticism of my music preferences. The man that I befriended and took on as my student both undermined and undercut me in a deceitful manner. He leveraged his knowledge of my worship-planning process and depicted it to the pastor in a very cunning, calculated way, a way which apparently did not provide the pastor any confidence in my spirituality or music ministry proficiency. It was a devastating blow to say the least.
I was never summoned to the private meetings between my protégé and pastor, but I certainly felt the upsetting aftershock of them. The relationship I had with the pastor was instantaneously severed. He exhibited a lack of trust in me as a worship leader and I exhibited a lack of trust in him as a pastor. I was subsequently asked to resign without even a farewell to the church, as if my term there was an unfortunate footnote. My friendship with my apprentice never recovered from the ministerial backstabbing. Not surprisingly, the gentleman was asked to be the interim worship pastor after my hasty departure.
Deceit highlights the cruelest nature of mankind, even in believers. Paul was no stranger to humanity’s devious and deceitful attributes. In Acts 20, Jewish followers devised a plot to harm the apostle as he was about to set sail for Syria. God’s providence made the conspiracy known to Paul and he was able to circumvent the fruition of the malevolent scheme by going through Macedonia. Acts 23 introduces us to yet another attempt to afflict the apostle, which, once again, came through shrewd, spiteful intentions. Acts 22 closed with a Jewish trial. The Roman military commander posted in Jerusalem, Lysias, who had taken personal responsibility for Paul after Jewish followers assaulted the apostle outside the temple, called together a religious meeting of the Sanhedrin. As highlighted previously in Acts 4, the Sanhedrin was a Jewish council of religious leaders, a council containing priests, elders, and experts in the Mosaic law. In Acts 4, the apostles Peter and John were arrested and interrogated by the religious panel. In Acts 6, Stephen was forcibly set before the Sanhedrin to disclose his spiritual beliefs right before he was executed. Therefore, Paul’s session with the Sanhedrin in Acts 22 was not uncommon, but also did not have a strong likelihood of yielding a receptive audience based on the aforementioned examples.
The outcome of Paul’s assembly with the Sanhedrin is captured in Acts 23. As Paul stepped foot inside the gathering place, he made a short, but significant statement, “My brothers, I have fulfilled my duty to God in all good conscience to this day” (Acts 23:1). Paul’s usage of “brothers” implored the religious body to not think of Paul as some outsider of the Hebrew community. This form of civility was similar to what he expressed in his introductory remarks to an angry Jewish mob in Acts 22:1. Paul was entrenched in the Hebrew legacy and deserved honest consideration as a fellow family member. Paul went on to say that he had fulfilled his duty to God, which surely drew the ire of most, if not all, of the Sanhedrin members. This same council once sanctioned Paul to destroy the very faith movement he was now championing (Acts 22:5). To the Sanhedrin, Paul was a deserter, or worse a traitor. For the apostle to claim, although rightly, that he was fulfilling his duty to God by witnessing in the name of Jesus Christ was sacrilegious speech in the ears of the spiritually-muted elitists. In their minds, Paul was not a saint; he was a miscreant.
Ananias, the high priest, was so enraged by Paul’s opening declaration that he ordered Paul be struck in the face. This scene is eerily reminiscent of what happened to Jesus in John 18:22. The command to strike another in the mouth was not only insulting it represented a motivation to silence the one speaking. Paul’s reaction to Ananias’s directive was potent. He compared the religious leader to a whitewashed tomb, a rebuke Jesus gave the Pharisees in Matthew 23:27. Paul alluded to the priest’s spiritual shallowness. He had the appearance and stature of a faithful disciple of God, but in ignoring, better yet despising, the message of Christ he exposed a heart that was cold, dark, and dead. Paul rested on the laurels of the Mosaic law which had strict guidelines for when it was proper to have a person physically reprimanded. According to Deuteronomy 25:2, only a guilty man could be beaten. At this point in his trial, Paul had not yet been found punishable of any transgression. Even though Paul was justified in calling the high priest out the unnecessary assault, those standing near the apostle chastised him for responding so harshly to the religious leader. Paul’s contrite reply implies Paul was unaware that Ananias was the high priest. The line Paul had to walk was a hard one for he had to boldly proclaim the truth of Christ, and yet still honor the traditions, principles, and hierarchy of the Jewish sect. Paul humbly abandoned his critical tenor, perhaps knowing that he had already offended the council and would offend them further with additional rebuke. Although Paul did not apologize, he acknowledged a sense of regret for his counter response to Ananias’s wrath.
Paul, perceiving the council would not welcome or accept his testimony, purposed to confuse the religious body. Paul pinned the Pharisees and Sadducees against one another by citing his Pharisee upbringing and training. He claimed his reason for standing trial was his hope in the resurrection of the dead, which alluded to Jesus Christ’s supernatural victory over death three days after He was crucified. This declaration sent the Sanhedrin into an immediate uproar. The Sadducees did not ascribe to the reality of angels or God’s capacity to resurrect people, whereas the Pharisees believed the opposite was true. Because of the sharp disagreement between the religious parties, the council was unable to render a unanimous verdict upon Paul.
The chaotic environment quickly intensified and became primed for violence. Lysias bid the soldiers to take Paul back to the military barracks, lest he be manhandled by the Sanhedrin, particularly the Sadducees. Incredibly, Jesus personally attended to Paul in the apostle’s quarters the next night, encouraging him to continue testifying. In fact, Jesus told Paul to testify in Rome as he had admirably done in Jerusalem. Christ’s mentioning of Rome guaranteed Paul that the Lord would see him through his current predicament in Jerusalem. It is important to note Christ’s appearance to Paul came at a much-needed time. The rebuffing Paul received from his kinsmen no doubt vexed and distressed him. Scripture confirms the apostle ached to help save his Hebrew brethren. But the perpetual refusal to accept Paul’s message of redemptive truth by many Jewish people, especially the religious leaders, deeply troubled him. But Jesus compassionately addressed Paul’s pain so that it could be exchanged for heavenly peace.
The next day, Jewish men formed a cold-blooded collusion to assassinate the apostle. When the Jewish legal system could not conclusively condone Paul’s death, some forty individuals decided to take matters into their own hands. They hatched a ploy to lure Paul back to the Sanhedrin where the apostle was to be intercepted and killed. Their deceitful strategy was made known to the chief priests and elders, who wretchedly consented to it. Through God’s intervention, Paul’s nephew learned of the plot and immediately went to see Paul in his holding facility. Paul’s nephew told Paul everything he had discovered. Paul then requested the presence of a centurion. As identified in Acts 10, a centurion was a soldier of authority and rank. He was not someone who was disposed to being at a person’s beckon call. Centurions gave instruction far more often than they received it, especially in regard to instruction from non-military individuals. Paul beseeched the centurion take Paul’s nephew at once to Lysias. The text does not intimate Paul provided any amplifying information about Paul’s concern or the underlying circumstances. Neither does the narrative indicate that the centurion subjected Paul to questions relating to the issue or the credibility of Paul’s nephew. The centurion promptly obliged Paul’s appeal. That Paul could send for a centurion, entreat the centurion to swiftly accompany his nephew to the Roman commander’s company, and have the centurion accomplish his petition indicates Paul was deeply respected in the barracks setting.
When Paul’s nephew entered Lysias’s office, the military officer took the boy by the hand, implying the military officer possessed a very affectionate and sincere resolve. After the commander was informed of the plan to slay Paul, he asked the apostle’s nephew not to tell anyone what he had reported. This wise solicitation was probably done in the interest of the young man’s safety, lest the bloodthirsty connivers uncover Paul nephew’s whistle-blowing act. Lysias was compelled to remove Paul from the danger and rage that was emerging. He ordered two centurions to ready their units, along with seventy members of the cavalry and two hundred spearmen. Some four hundred and seventy soldiers departed Jerusalem that night, escorting Paul to Caesarea, where the apostle was placed in the charge of Governor Felix. This swift maneuver meant Paul’s Jewish trial was now a Roman trial.
The great irony of this account is that Paul’s Jewish kinsmen were so eager to rid the earth of him through deceitful and violent means, while Roman soldiers, the ones viewed as heathen brutes by many in the Hebrew community, displayed great concern and a protective temperament for Paul. The instruments God can use in any given situation truly astounds. Lysias included in the battalion accompanying Paul a written dispatch explaining why Paul was being transferred to Governor Felix’s care. When Felix received the letter and read it, he agreed to hear Paul’s case as soon as the Jewish religious leaders could arrive in Caesarea. Technically, Paul’s trial could have been convened in the Syrian province since Paul was from Cilicia, but Felix determined to examine the arguments in his province, presumably because he was familiar with Hebrew teachings in his marriage to a Jewish woman (Drusilla). In the meantime, the apostle was kept under guard in a room inside Herod’s palace awaiting the commencement of his hearing with Felix and various members of the Sanhedrin.
The latter half of Acts 23 illuminates humanity’s destructive disposition. Some forty spiritually corrupt Jewish men, along with numerous senior religious leaders, deemed Paul’s life, a life that was precious in God’s eyes (as all life is), expendable. This disparaging story reveals three elements about man’s deceitfulness. One, deceit exposes our moral shortcomings. The deceitful character of mankind authenticates the evil impulses of mankind. As much as we may try to tout our virtuous deeds or boast of our ethical respectability (especially in comparison to other people), we find that all measure of self-good falls short of God’s standard. The formation of an agenda to kill Paul displayed a horribly immoral darkness. No God-honoring thought went into it. No prayer-saturated effort was exercised. Pure and simple, the morally corrupt Jewish men indulged the most awful temptations the human heart can expel. In pride, they disregarded the sanctity of human life and sought to levy a death sentence on Paul. It is unsettling to consider how rapidly this plot progressed.
In diagnosing our deceitful, and overall carnal, character, we begin to understand what makes God worthy of our praise. He never produces nefarious contemplations nor entertains unholy activity. He is the everlasting example of moral supremacy and preeminence. God’s complete perfection and absolute holiness have no equal. There is tremendous hope in this observation for in recognizing our shortcomings we find Christ’s undeserved grace that much more amazing and awe-inspiring.
Two, deceit embitters our spiritual aspirations. Mankind was made to know God, as well as glorify Him. Scripture attests that we are a treasured creation in that we are made in God’s image. We are endowed with emotional, mental, and spiritual receptors that nothing else in God’s design enjoys, save heaven’s angels. When humanity rebels against God we dishonor His holy intentions. This was particularly obvious in Acts 23 when the Jewish conspirators took a solemn oath not to eat anything until Paul was dead. Throughout the Bible, fasting was employed as a means of worshipping God. For instance, the believers in Antioch temporarily sacrificed the physical needs of their bodies so that their spiritual needs could find greater satisfaction and fulfillment in God, according to Acts 13:2. The believers in Antioch wanted to discern God’s will and receive His blessing. And yet fasting was utilized in Acts 23:14 as a motivator to accomplish a most profane work: murder. This mindset shamefully discarded God’s commandment in Exodus 20:13.
The men involved with this plot bound themselves to iniquity. They forsook God’s Word and God’s virtue. They did not attempt to consult God or mirror the Lord’s grace-filled poise. Spiritually embittered, they yielded to sinister objectives and became pawns of the devil. This is an eye-opening reminder that it is imperative that we guard our heart and surrender time daily to Scripture. If we willingly allow ourselves to slowly drift from God then we will eventually find ourselves thinking or doing things that are unimaginable in an attentive, Holy Spirit-affixed posture. God will lead us if we allow Him to. But if we turn Him away then we will surely approve the implementation of heinous notions, as the embittered Jewish men did in Acts 23.
Three, deceit escalates our wicked tendencies. Sin begets more sin. One vile exploit precedes another, often more egregious, exploit. Sin is not stationary. It craves more and demands more. Its thirst is not easily satisfied. What starts off as one seemingly small transgression can easily transform into a series of disastrous decisions. Momentary pleasure can induce long-lasting misery and remorse. The collateral damage from such mistakes impacts friends, spouses, children, siblings, parents, coworkers, neighbors, and a host of other people we come into contact with every day.
Had the Jewish conspirators, including the chief priests and elders, been attune to Scripture they would have abandoned this ungodly endeavor. Their misdeeds were completely contrary to the tenets of the Old Testament. Solomon wrote about such a scenario in Proverbs 1 when he warned, “My son, if sinners entice you, do not give in to them. If they say, ‘Come along with us; let’s lie in wait for someone’s blood, let’s waylay some harmless soul; let’s swallow them alive, like the grave, and whole, like those who go down to the pit; we will get all sorts of valuable things and fill our houses with plunder; throw in your lot with us, and we will share a common purse’ – my son, do not go along with them” (Proverbs 1:10-15). Solomon went on to say that people who strive after ill-gotten gain and behave inappropriately will only hurt themselves. They will toil to take the lives of others, but wind up losing their own (Proverbs 1:19).
In the end, Acts 23 is a cautionary lesson on what can happen when we step outside or altogether disregard God’s protective moral boundaries. It confirms how vital it is that believers walk by faith and cling to God’s Word. There is spiritually rich and resourceful information in the Bible if man will choose to submit to it. The more time we dedicate to God’s treasured message the more we will find our spiritual tendencies strengthening, rather than our wicked tendencies. Ultimately, only God can help us overcome the sinful nature we are so disposed of succumbing to. In Genesis 4, when God perceived Cain’s jealously towards his brother Abel, God told Cain that if he continued to do wrong, sin would continue to wait at his door (Genesis 4:7). God proclaimed sin was ready to devour Cain. Later, Cain premeditatedly and deceitfully lured Abel into a field where he killed his brother, his own flesh and blood. Such is the inclination and enterprise of a life averse to abiding in God’s truth.
Are you properly shielding your heart and mind from the deceitful inclinations of man through the power of God’s Word and Spirit?
No comments:
Post a Comment