‘A CONSCIENCE WITHOUT OFFENSE’

Posted by Pastor Greg Allen on August 30, 2023 under AM Bible Study |

AM Bible Study Group: August 30, 2023 from Acts 24:1-21

Theme: To ‘strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men’ now will enable us to bear a powerful witness for Jesus later.

(All Scripture is taken from The New King James Version, unless otherwise indicated).

Click HERE for the live-stream archive of this Bible Study.

Click HERE for the audio version of this Bible Study.

The central point of the passage before us today is what Paul said in Acts 24:16. It was a remarkable claim—not one to make in the circumstances he was in unless it was absolutely true: “… I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men.”

But what an important thing to be able—with full integrity—to say when one needs to!

* * * * * * * * * *

In his first letter, the apostle Peter was writing to Jewish Christians who were suffering persecution for their faith in Jesus. Peter helped them to see that the trial they were experiencing was actually an opportunity provided by God. They were suffering for their Lord—and in a way that was like their Lord—in order to be able to better declare their Lord to the world.

And because this was so, Peter urged them to be careful to behave in such a way as to advance that opportunity. In 1 Peter 2:11-12, he told them;

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).

Similarly, in 3:15-16, he told them;

But sanctify the Lord God in your hearts, and always be ready to give a defense to everyone who asks you a reason for the hope that is in you, with meekness and fear; having a good conscience, that when they defame you as evildoers, those who revile your good conduct in Christ may be ashamed (3:15-16).

The principle seems to be that, if we are always careful to act in an honorable, respectful, lawful manner before all men—even in times of persecution and trial—it will enable us to bear a powerful witness for the Lord Jesus to them when the opportunity arises later. And that important principle is what we see demonstrated to us by the apostle Paul in Acts 24:1-21.

* * * * * * * * * *

Now; in this portion of Acts, we’re presented with a genuine ‘courtroom drama’—with Paul as the defendant.

Paul underwent a great deal of trouble on the way to that moment. In our most recent studies of Acts, we’ve learned of how Paul came to Jerusalem to bring a gift to the persecuted Jewish Christians in Jerusalem (Acts 21:15-21); but was then attacked and arrested on the false accusation that he was a disruptor of Jewish traditions (Acts 21:18-22:29). And then, he sought to defend himself before the Jewish Sanhedrin—only leading to a great dissension; making it necessary for him to be sent to Caesarea for an examination by the Roman governor (22:30-23:35). This passage continues that story by telling us of Paul’s defense before that Roman governor Felix. And what stands out in this story is how Paul’s clear conscience helped pave the way for God’s continued use of him in bringing the gospel beyond Jerusalem and on to Rome.

And so; that leads us to his trial. First, we read of …

1. THE CHARGES MADE AGAINST PAUL (vv. 1-9).

In verse 1, we’re told;

Now after five days Ananias the high priest came down with the elders and a certain orator named Tertullus. These gave evidence to the governor against Paul (v. 1).

These Jewish accusers had already been frustrated in their attempt to kill Paul. In Acts 23:12-15, a secret assassination attempt had already been thwarted—which is why they had to make their way to Caesarea and make their case to the Roman governor. So, they were very eager to establish their charges against him. To secure their case against him as effectively as they could, they hired a man named Tertullus—a man described to us as “a certain orator”. He was a professional speaker who—in this case—was called upon to present a convincing case against Paul. Tertullus was serving very much like a prosecuting attorney. What’s more, his name suggests that he was a Roman; and—for that reason—was probably hand-picked by Paul’s Jewish accusers. He would have been particularly helpful in making an appeal against Paul before a Roman governor.

And Tertullus was obviously very good at his job! He began to pave the way for his case against Paul by buttering up Governor Felix. Verses 2-3 tell us;

And when he was called upon, Tertullus began his accusation, saying: “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).

Those would not have been the kind of things that any of those Jewish accusers would have wanted to say; so, it’s no wonder they hired this professional to do it for them! Tertullus went on;

“Nevertheless, not to be tedious to you any further, I beg you to hear, by your courtesy, a few words from us” (v. 4).

Having gotten the flattery out of the way, the charges were then presented by Tertullus. Notice that he includes himself as a witness; although probably only in a rhetorical sense—that is, as a representative of the charges that the Jewish accusers were making.

“For we have found this man a plague, a creator of dissension among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. He even tried to profane the temple …” (vv. 5-6a).

Now; let’s consider these charges carefully. They are basically three in number:

• 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 had only occurred in a few isolated cities; and not at all throughout the inhabited world—as Tertullus’ words implied. 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.
  • The second charge was that Paul was a leader of a dangerous 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 would have implied that he was a “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 also have been intended by Tertullus to arouse a bias on the part of Felix; because it was a common belief among people in those days that nothing good could come out of Nazareth (see John 1:46).
  • 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 grounds (21:29).

And after making these charges, Tertullus went on to say;

“and we seized him, and 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. By examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” And the Jews also assented, maintaining that these things were so (vv. 6b-9).

Now; it’s important to notice that some ancient Greek texts omit the words immediately after “and we seized him …”; and don’t resume the words of Tertullus until the middle of verse 8 where it says, “By examining him …” Those omitted words (vv. 6b-8a) are included in some translations. But they have Tertullus making an argument—based on the events of 21:28-30—that would surely have destroyed any sympathy that the Roman governor might have for his case. What seems very sure and reliable in the text, however, is his statement, “By examining him [that is, Paul] yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him” (v. 8b). And to everything that Tertullus asserted, verse 9 tells us that the Jewish accusers gave their consent.

These were extremely serious claims. But that’s when we go on to read of …

2. PAUL’S DEFENCE AGAINST THE CHARGES (vv. 10-21).

And as it turned out, his careful conduct in the past helped him to bear a faithful witness in the situation he now faced. Luke tells us in verses 10-11;

Then Paul, after the governor had nodded to him to speak, answered: “Inasmuch as I know that you have been for many years a judge of this nation, I do the more cheerfully answer for myself, because you may ascertain that it is no more than twelve days since I went up to Jerusalem to worship …” (vv. 10-11).

Notice that in no way did Paul resort to false flattery toward the governor. And we can expect that the governor had enough sense to recognize that!

Now; you’ve heard the old saying that “a man who serves as his own lawyer has a fool for a client”? Well; not this time! Paul went on to answer the charges of his accusers one-by-one … and did so wisely and powerfully. As to the charge of sedition, Paul testified in verses 12-13;

“And they neither found me in the temple disputing with anyone nor inciting the crowd, either in the synagogues or in the city. Nor can they prove the things of which they now accuse me” (vv. 12-13).

That accusation was intended to be the one that would most impact Felix as a keeper of the peace. But it was demonstrably false. The short time that Paul had spent in Jerusalem before being attacked (which was no more than one day) would hardly have been enough time for him—if he had wanted to—to incite any kind of rebellion against the Jewish authorities. His accusers couldn’t prove their charge; and if they had tried to do so, they’d only have ended up discrediting themselves before the governor.

As to the charge that Paul was the leader of a destructive and divisive sect, he went on to say in verses 14-16;

“But this I confess to you, that according to the Way which they call a sect, so I worship the God of my fathers, believing all things which are written in the Law and in the Prophets. 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. This being so, I myself always strive to have a conscience without offense toward God and men” (vv. 14-16).

Paul here makes the case that he was not in any way in conflict with the basic principles of the Jewish faith. He strove to keep true to the God that his own people honored; and in a way that would have been approved by all reasonable men. What’s more, he agreed fully with the doctrinal truths that were held by the traditions of the Jewish people. If his accusers had attempted to argue against Paul’s teaching, they would have been arguing against themselves (see Acts 23:6-10). And they were not about to do that in front of the governor!

And as to the charge that he tried to profane the temple, he went on to say in verses 17-19;

“Now after many years I came to bring alms and offerings to my nation, in the midst of which some Jews from Asia found me purified in the temple, neither with a mob nor with tumult. They ought to have been here before you to object if they had anything against me” (vv 17-19).

He had come to Jerusalem to bring a generous gift to help meet the needs of the suffering Jewish Christians. And even if they objected to that, they’d have to admit that when they came upon him, he was in the process of making an offering for the Jewish men who had completed their sacred vows before God (Acts 21:23-26). It was in the midst of this honorable act, Paul says, that he was discovered by Jews from Asia. And if they were honest about the matter, they’d have to admit that they found him neither ceremonially impure in the temple, nor with a mob or a tumult.

Paul adds this one thing:

“Or else let those who are here themselves say if they found any wrongdoing in me while I stood before the council, unless it is for this one statement which I cried out, standing among them, ‘Concerning the resurrection of the dead I am being judged by you this day” (vv. 20-21).

And if that was the only thing that they could charge him with having done—that is, with having said before the council that he believed the same things that they believed—then the case was essentially closed. They certainly weren’t going to try to argue that point of theology.

* * * * * * * * * *

This was truly high courtroom drama! But what’s the point of the story? Is it to show us how clever Paul was? Was it to show us how he bested his accusers? No! It was to show us that doing what Paul did long before the trial—that is, making sure that he always strove “to have a conscience without offense toward God and men”—is what made it possible for him to present a faithful witness for his Lord.

Jesus once said,

“You will be brought before governors and kings for My sake, as a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. But when they deliver you up, do not worry about how or what you should speak. 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 10:18-20).

That requires that we live faithfully in such a way that the Holy Spirit can bless us and use us—that is, with a clear conscience before God and men. May God help us to make the investment of a good conscience before Him now, so that we will see a return on that investment then!

AE