A Conscience Without Offense
Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on April 22, 2009 under PM Bible Study |
PM Home Bible Study; April 22, 2009
Acts 24:1-27
Theme: Paul’s defense before Governor Felix highlights the value there is in keeping ‘a conscience without offense toward God and men’ with respect to the spread of the gospel.
In our most recent studies of Acts, we have examined Paul’s arrival and arrest in Jerusalem (Acts 21:18-22:29), and his defense before the Jewish Sanhedrin (22:30-23:35). This evening’s study continues looking at Paul’s defense—this time before the Roman Governor Felix. And what stands out in this section is the clear conscience with which Paul had conducted his ministry among the Jews—and how this helped pave the way for God’s continued use of him in bringing the gospel beyond Jerusalem and on to Rome.
As the apostle Peter has once written, “Beloved, I beg you as sojourners and pilgrims, abstain from fleshly lusts which war against the soul, having your conduct honorable among the Gentiles, that when they speak against you as evildoers, they may, by your good works which they observe, glorify God in the day of visitation” (1 Peter 2:11-12). And we see this exhibited clearly in Paul’s experience in this evening’s ‘courtroom drama’.
I. THE ACCUSATIONS BROUGHT AGAINST PAUL BY THE JEWS (vv. 1-9).
A. In the last chapter of the book of Acts, Paul was kept in Herod’s Praetorium in Caesarea pending the arrival of his accusers from Jerusalem (23:35). And now, at the beginning of chapter 24, we read that “after five days”, the high priest Ananius—along with the elders—came to Caesarea to make their charges against Paul. Note that they had been frustrated in their attempt to kill Paul previously (cf. 23:12-15); so, no doubt, they were very eager to make their charges against him. Luke tells us that they brought along with them a man named Tertullus who was described as “a certain orator” (v. 1). He was a skilled speaker; but his particular purpose in this case was to help present a convincing charge against Paul in a manner very much like a lawyer. His name suggests that he was a Roman; and would thus have been particularly helpful in appealing to a Roman governor against Paul.
B. Just how skilled an orator Terullus was is shown in the way he began his case. He begins by—frankly—”buttering-up” the governor. “Seeing that through you we enjoy great peace, and prosperity is being brought to this nation by your foresight, we accept it always and in all places, most noble Felix, with all thankfulness” (vv. 2-3). It should be noted, however, that within a short amount of time, Felix would be removed from office by Nero and replaced by Porcius Festus (see v. 27) because of a severe breakdown in the relations with the Jewish community (see Josephus, Antiquities, 20.8.9).
C. After the flatteries were out of the way (v. 4).—and Tertullus offers to move-on so as not to be too “tedious” to Felix—the orator then goes on to present three basic charges against Paul:
1. The first charge was that Paul was a seditionist (v. 5a). Paul was charged with being a “plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world”. There was a considerable amount of exaggeration to this; because any disturbances that Paul may have been involved with were only in a few isolated cities—not at all throughout, as their words implied, the inhabited world. Nor were those disturbances instigated by Paul. They were always instigated by the Jewish leaders in hostile opposition to Paul’s preaching. Nevertheless, this would have been a strategic accusation to bring forth first; because Felix might not have been interested in a religious dispute as much as he would have been in a charge of disturbing the peace.
2. The second charge was that Paul was a leader of a cult—here called a “sect” (v. 5b).. Though this would have been primarily a religious charge, it would have added fuel to the first charge that Paul was a disturber of the peace in that it accuses him of being “a ringleader” of a rival sect in the midst of a culture that is primarily given over to Judaism. It’s interesting to note that the “sect” is called by the name “the Nazarenes”—suggesting a plurality of those who followed Jesus the Nazarene. The name “Nazarenes” could have been calculated by Tertullus to bring about bias on the part of Felix, because it was common belief that nothing good could come out of Nazareth (see John 1:46).
3. The third charge was the more dangerous one to make, because it would have been immediately proven or disproven by the facts: that Paul had, on the supposed motives of the first two charges, “tried to profane the temple”. Their specific charge at that time was that he had attempted to bring a Gentile into the temple (21:29). Tetullus said that “we tried to seize him” (see 21:28-30). Note the inclusion of himself in those words, which may only indicate that he stood as the advocate for the Jews in their case. Note also that at this point, the most reliable Greek texts drop-off and resume at verse 8. In some of those text, it has Tertullus contending something that would surely have hurt any sympathy that the governor would have for his case—that the Jews “wanted to judge him according to our law. But the commander Lysias came by and with great violence took him out of our hands, commanding his accusers to come to you” (vv. 6b-8a; NKJV). What seems reliable in the text is his words, “By examining him yourself [that is, Paul] you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him” (v. 8b).
D. Luke adds that, at the conclusion of Tertullus’ case before Felix, “the Jews also assented [that is, joined in on the attack], maintaining that these things were so” (v. 9); although it would become clear later on that they could not support their charges.
II. PAUL’S DEFENSE OF A CONSCIENCE WITHOUT OFFENSE BEFORE ALL (vv. 10-21).
A. Jesus once told His followers not to fear if they were brought before governors and kings for His sake as a testimony to them; “For it will be given to you in that hour what you should speak; for it is not you who speak, but the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you” (Matthew 10:19-20). And in what follows, we clearly see the courage and soundness of mind of a man who is under the Spirit’s rule. After the governor signals that Paul may speak, the apostle begins by extending sincere courtesies to him. “Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself . . .” (v. 10). In no way did Paul falsely flatter the governor—and we can expect that the governor had enough sense to recognize this.
B. Now; Paul begins to answer the three charges brought against him:
1. As to the charge that he was a a seditionist who sought to bring disruption to the Jewish people, Paul told Felix that he may “ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship” (v. 11; which, considering the time frame, would hardly be enough time to create a sedition). And as to the Jews who were making accusation against him, he replied, “And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city” (v. 11). He adds, “Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me” (v. 13). This is a direct response to the point that Tertullus’ hoped would most impact Felix—that Paul was a disturber of the peace. If they had sought to prove that accusation, they would have ended up incriminating themselves.
2. Second, as to the charge that Paul was a ringleader of a sect, he makes the case that he was—in no way—in conflict with the basic principles of the true Jewish faith. The accusers called it a “sect”; but he called it “the Way, which they call a sect”; and he argues that, in it, “so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and the Prophets” (v. 14). What’s more, he adds that “I have hope in God, which they themselves also accept, that there will be a resurrection of the dead, both of the just and the unjust” (v. 15). If they were to argue against this point, they would have been arguing against themselves (see Acts 23:6-10); and they were not about to do this in front of Felix. “This being so,” Paul adds, “I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” (v. 16). What a great and bold testimony!
3. Finally, as to the charge that Paul was seeking to profane the temple, Paul goes on to say that, after many years, he had come to Jerusalem in order to bring alms and offerings to “my nation” (v. 17). In reality, it was to the believers of Jesus from among his nation; but his way of putting it was both true and appealing to the governor and accusers. It was in the midst of this act, Paul says, that he was discovered by Jews from Asia (see Acts 19:21-41; 21:27); and if they were honest about the matter, they’d have to admit that they found him neither impure in the temple, nor with a mob or a tumult (v. 18). Furthermore, he adds that they ought to be present to make their accusation (vv. 19-20)—knowing that they would not be able to make their case stick if they were; and added that the only thing they could charge him with was that, in the Sanhedrin, he said that He was being judged for his belief in the resurrection of the dead (v. 21)—knowing that they were not about to try to argue that point of theology and become divided among themselves again before the judge.
III. THE RESPONSE OF THE GOVERNOR TO PAUL’S CASE (vv. 22-27).
A. Note that the governor is said to be a man who had “more accurate knowledge of the Way” (v. 22). This may be because he had a Jewish wife (v. 24); but it was probably because he was prudent-enough of a ruler to know the goings-on within his own area of responsibilities. He decided to adjourn the meeting and said, “When Lysias the commander comes down, I will make a decision on your case” (v. 22). And leaving Paul in the custody of the centurion (v. 23)—allowing Paul ample freedom to go about, and to receive visitors—the matter seems to have been temporarily dropped. It would make sense to wait until Lysias could come and give his report; but we have no record that he ever came. It may be too that, because he dropped the case, the Jews had no choice but to leave the matter for a while themselves.
B. But in the meantime, Felix drew closer to Paul in a personal way. This testifies in a remarkable way to the character of Paul—which the governor could clearly detect. We’re told that after a few days, Felix came with his Jewish wife Drusilla (who was the daughter of Herod Agrippa I from chapter 12, and the sister of Agrippa II who we will meet in chapter 26); and together, they came to hear Paul in a personal way “about the faith” (v. 24). We can only imagine what an exciting development this must have been to Paul. And we note also that Paul didn’t seem to tailor his gospel in order to win Felix’s favor. Paul, we’re told, “reasoned about righteousness, self-control, and the judgment to come” (v. 25; see also John 16:8). This caused such fear to Felix that he answered, “Go away for now; when I have a convenient time I will call for you.” He, indeed, did come often and converse with Paul (v. 26). Apparently, though, Felix’s motives weren’t always because he wanted to know more. Luke tells us that he also hoped to receive money from Paul for his release—perhaps either by the friends who freely came to give Paul support, or through the money that Paul said he had brought to bring to the needy in Jerusalem.
C. This went on for two years. Sadly though, the “more convenient time” never came for Felix. Nero had arranged for him to be removed, and for Porcius Festus to become his successor. Felix, wanting to do the Jews a favor, left Paul bound in prison for Festus to deal with. But as we’ll see in our next study, even this was in God’s hands.
* * * * * * * * * *
The great lesson to learn from this is that care in our personal and public lives to “strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” helps greatly to enhance our witness for Jesus in this world during tough times yet to come. May God help us to make the investment of a good conscience before Him now, so that we will see a return in that investment then!
