The Bible says “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”(Acts 24:1). Evidence should be based on the truth of what one has seen or knows. For example, when a witness is called to testify at a trial it is to tell what that person has seen or heard. The testimony ought to be accurate and nothing but the truth.
Paul the apostle was trained to defend the truth and had plenty of occasions to practice his skills. Polls are conducted frequently in this country to discover the public attitude relative to truth. Poll after poll indicates that if there is any truth, it doesn’t matter. Maybe that is the reason so many of our leaders get away with not telling the truth.
Paul realized he had an enemy and it was not merely those charging him, but the enemy was the evil art of sophistry. The first Christian scholar was probably Clement of Alexandria. Although little is known of his life he was one of the early defenders of the Christian religion. In one his writings he said, “the art of sophistry, which the Greeks cultivated, is a fantastic power, which makes false opinions like true by means of words. For it produces rhetoric in order to persuasion, and disputation for wrangling. These arts, therefore, if not conjoined with philosophy, will be injurious to every one. For Plato openly called sophistry “an evil art.” And Aristotle, following him, demonstrates it to be a dishonest art, which abstracts in a specious manner the whole business of wisdom, and professes a wisdom which it has not studied” (Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, chap. 8).
Sophistry is a subtle false argument. To sophisticate means to mislead by deception and false arguments. To be sophisticated is actually bad, although a new meaning is that a sophisticated person is worldly wise, they are in the know, and on top of things.
Another early church father said the argument against Christianity unfolds itself and discloses the tangled web of their sophistries, men of discernment see at once that what they have apprehended is nothing at all. I see that the world everywhere trifle with God, and that the ungodly delude themselves with Sophistries,. (Calvin Commentaries. On Nahum). The nineteenth century theologian, apologist, and pastor James. H. Thornwell said “The sophist of speculation is the hypocrite”
In the text of Acts chapters 24 and 25, Paul makes his third defense. First he had addressed the mob in Jerusalem, then he appeared before the Sanhedrin and now he is before Felix the governor of Judea. The Jews from Jerusalem came to charge Paul with the hope that Felix would turn Paul over to them or better yet that Felix would have Paul put to death.
The Jewish leaders from Jerusalem brought a spokesman with them. His name was Tertullus. Was he a Jew or Roman Lawyer? He appears to have been knowledgeable with Roman law and has a Roman name so what we probably have is a Greek translation of a Latin speech. Felix the governor called on Tertullus to state his case.
In the typical style of that day, Tertullus should acknowledge the governor’s office and authority. Notice how Tertullus addressed the governor. Tertullus accredited Felix with bringing peace and prosperity to Judea. That was a lie and a big lie on top of being a lie. Felix brought trouble, dissension, suspension, and terror to that part of the Middle East. Then Tertullus said Felix was a man of foresight. That was a lie. Family connections and intrigue got him the position. His corruption caused so much trouble that Nero finally recalled Felix. It is hard to imagine that anyone could be worse than Nero. Tertullus skillfully lied, as any sophist does, to gain favor with the governor.
Tertullus eventually said there were three charges against Paul. First, Paul was charged with being a troublemaker. The New King James Version translates it “creator of dissension” The Greek word is related to the English word “plague”. Like an infectious disease it would spread throughout the empire. According to Tertullus, Paul was a real danger for the Roman Empire. Second, Paul was charged with being a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes. A ringleader is always considered a threat by the state. Third, Tertullus said Paul tried to desecrate the Temple. Of the three charges this is the only one of significance. Rome had given the Jews permission to impose the death penalty to anyone who defiled the temple. All three charges were merely accusations. However, they were very effectively presented by way of sophistry.
Tertullus stated them as if they were true and ultimately deserved condemnation. You will notice that Tertullus concluded his arguments with an agreement from the Jews present. He told Felix “by examining him yourself you may ascertain all these things of which we accuse him.” Tertullus assumed that his deception and cunning was to be believed. Felix should believe the charges because Tertullus made them, the Jews present for the trial agreed, and the democracy, that is the mob at Jerusalem, had voted against Paul.
There was no place for truth, but the sophist seems to forget a fundamental axiom. Truth is always true even if nobody believes it. Falsehood is false even if everybody believes it. Os Guiness has rightly said that “without truth we are all vulnerable to manipulation.”
Paul’s defense before Felix is radically and truthfully different than the rhetoric dumped out by Tertullus. Paul clearly stated that he was not a troublemaker. He was only in Jerusalem for six days. He didn’t even preach while he was there. Paul disputed no one while he was there. He didn’t even gather a crowd of people except the democracy without a conscience.
Paul admitted he was a follower of the way, but certainly not a ringleader. Anyhow, didn’t Roman law allow Paul to practice his religion just like they allowed the Jews to practice their religion?
Paul’s final defense was “I did not desecrate the temple.” In fact Paul was submitting to the Jewish law and was ceremonially clean. There was no sophistry in Paul’s defense. There was no deception. There was no wrangling with words. Truth was Paul’s only defense.
A nation, a church, or an individual that gives in to the deception of sophistry, will lose the freedom to tell the truth. For the Christian to use empty words is to make mockery of the head and the king of the church, the Lord Jesus Christ.
![[Valid RSS feed]](http://www.christian-article-bank.com/images/icon_Rss.png "XML Feed For RSS"){kind=icon}
Category Rss Feed
Print This Article
Add To Favorites