Paul looked directly at the Sanhedrin and said, “Brothers, I have conducted myself before God in all good conscience to this day.”Paul, looking steadfastly at the council, said, “Brothers, I have lived before God in all good conscience until today.”And Paul, earnestly beholding the council, said, Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.And Paul, looking stedfastly on the council, said, Brethren, I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day.
4 sermons cite this verse
… And he stands before the high priest and the Jewish Sanhedrin. And he begins his opening statement is this. I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. and Ananias the high priest gave a commandment to another person in the Sanhedrin said go up and hit him in the mouth for saying that and so they smacked him on the mouth and then God said to the high priest God will smite you you whited wall and the guy said how can you say that to the high priest and Paul said oh I didn't know it was the high priest which is interesting it's always an interesting story and I don't want to digress too much on it but that may lend itself to the idea that Paul did have an eye problem his eyesight was affected I have commented on that a few different occasions that Paul his thorn in the flesh could have been diminished eyesight perhaps because he was stoned at Lystra not like stoned but I mean they threw rocks at him stoned at Lystra and that affected his eyesight. So here he is in the Sanhedrin with the high priest and he says, why I didn't know that was the high priest. Being a Jewish elder himself, he would have known that, but he didn't. But anyway, the statement, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Job is maintaining the same. My heart shall not reproach me as long as I live. May my enemy be like the wicked and he who rises against me like the …
11. To come yet closer: Suppose God were now to speak to any soul, “Thy sins are forgiven thee,” — he must be willing that soul should know his voice; otherwise he would speak in vain. And he is able to effect this; for, whenever he wills, to do is present with him. And he does effect it: That soul is absolutely assured, “this voice is the voice of God.” But yet he who hath that witness in himself, cannot explain it to one who hath it not: Nor indeed is it to be expected that he should. Were there any natural medium to prove, or natural method to explain, the things of God to unexperienced men, then the natural man might discern and know the things of the Spirit of God. But this is utterly contrary to the assertion of the Apostle, that “he cannot know them, because they are spiritually discerned;” [1 Cor. 2:14] even by spiritual senses, which the natural man hath not. 12. “But how shall I know that my spiritual senses are rightly disposed?” This also is a question of vast importance; for if a man mistake in this, he may run on in endless error and delusion. “And how am I assured that this is not my case; and that I do not mistake the voice of the Spirit?” Even by the testimony of your own spirit; by “the answer of a good conscience toward God.” [Acts 23:1] By the fruits which he hath wrought in your spirit, you shall know the testimony of the Spirit of God. Hereby you shall know, that you are in no delusion, that you have not deceived your own soul. The immediate fruits of the Spirit ruling in the heart, are “love, joy, peace, bowels of mercies, humbleness of mind, meekness, gentleness, long-suffering.” [Gal. 5:22, 23] And the outward fruits are, the doing good to all men; the doing no evil to any; and the walking in the light, [1 John 1:7] — a zealous, uniform obedience to all the commandments of God. …
This is a lantern unto a Christians feet, and a light in all his paths. This alone he receives as his rule of right or wrong, of whatever is really good or evil. he esteems nothing good, but what is here enjoined, either directly or by plain consequence, he accounts nothing evil but what is here forbidden, either in terms, or by undeniable inference. Whatever the Scripture neither forbids nor enjoins, either directly or by plain consequence, he believes to be of an indifferent nature; to be in itself neither good nor evil; this being the whole and sole outward rule whereby his conscience is to be directed in all things. 7. And if it be directed thereby, in fact, then hath he the answer of a good conscience toward God. “A good conscience is what is elsewhere termed by the Apostle, “a conscience void of offense.” So, what he at one time expresses thus, “I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day;” (Acts 23:1; ) he denotes at another, by that expression, “herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offense toward God, and toward men.” (Acts 24:16.) Now in order to this there is absolutely required, First, a right understanding of the word of God, or his “holy, and acceptable, and perfect will” concerning us, as it is revealed therein. For it is impossible we should walk by a rule, if we do not know what it means. There is, Secondly, required (which how few have attained!) a true knowledge of ourselves; a knowledge both of our hearts and lives, or our inward tempers and outward conversation: Seeing, if we know them not, it is not possible that we should compare them with our rule. There is required, Thirdly, an agreement of our hearts and lives, or our tempers and conversation, or our thoughts, and words, and works, with that rule, with the written word of God. For, without this, if we have any conscience at all, it can be only an evil conscience. There is, Fourthly, required, an inward perception of this agreement with our rule: And this habitual perception, this inward consciousness itself, is properly a good conscience; or, in other phrase of the Apostle, “a conscience void of offense, toward God, and toward men.” …
6. This was “the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees;” a righteousness which, in many respects, went far beyond the conception which many have been accustomed to entertain concerning it. But perhaps it will be said, “It was all false and feigned; for they were all a company of hypocrites.” Some of them doubtless were; men who had really no religion at all, no fear of God, or desire to please him; who had no concern for the honour that cometh of God, but only for the praise of men. And these are they whom our Lord so severely condemns, so sharply reproves, on many occasions. But we must not suppose, because many Pharisees were hypocrites, therefore all were so. Nor indeed is hypocrisy by any means essential to the character of a Pharisee. This is not the distinguishing mark of their sect. It is rather this, according to our Lord’s account, “They trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others.” This is their genuine badge. But the Pharisee of this kind cannot be a hypocrite. He must be, in the common sense, sincere; otherwise he could not “trust in himself that he is righteous.” The man who was here commending himself to God unquestionably thought himself righteous. Consequently, he was no hypocrite; he was not conscious to himself of any insincerity. He now spoke to God just what he thought, namely, that he was abundantly better than other men. But the example of St. Paul, were there no other, is sufficient to put this out of all question. He could not only say, when he was a Christian, “Herein do I exercise myself, to have always a conscience void of offence toward God and toward men;” (Acts 24:16; ) but even concerning the time when he was a Pharisee, “Men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day.” (Acts 23:1) He was therefore sincere when he was a Pharisee, as well when he was a Christian. He was no more a hypocrite when he persecuted the Church, than when he preached the faith which once he persecuted. Let this then be added to “the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees,” — a sincere belief that they are righteous, and in all things “doing God service.” …