Living for Jesus through Earth's little while. It's just a little while that we have to live our lives for the Lord Jesus Christ. And to do so, having a good conscience before God. Acts chapter 23 and verse one, as where the apostle Paul says, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Remember that we saw God's providential care of Paul in chapter 22, how God had planned way ahead of time for this man, this apostle, to have been born a Roman citizen. God providentially cared for him, protected him from the mob and from the chief captain who was ready to scourge him. That providential care continues via that chief captain, that Kiliarch, into the chapter that we're in today, starting today, chapter 23. Here in this chapter, you're gonna see in verses one through 11 that this chief captain rescues Paul from the council. Look at verse one again, Paul earnestly beholding the council. We'll talk more about them in just a moment. In verses 12 to 22, the Kiliarch is alerted by Paul's nephew. It's an interesting story. how that Paul's nephew just happens to overhear, happens. Coincidentally, people would say, no, providentially, he overhears what the Jews are planning against Paul. And then in verses 23 to 35 here in chapter 23, the chief captain delivers Paul to the governor to deliver him safely away from this Jewish mob. So in verses one through 11 of chapter 23, this chief captain rescues Paul from the council. This council, mentioned in verse one, is led by the chief priest by the name of Ananias, who you will see is a hypocrite. You ever met a hypocrite? Our churches are full of them. That's why people don't come to church. They say there's too many hypocrites. You see, they're nowhere else in the world. They're only in church. They're not in Washington for sure, right? You can't meet hypocrites anywhere. They're only in the church. That's why I don't go to church. Well, that's why I don't golf. Because the golf course is full of hypocrites. Like me who pretends to love it but hates it the whole time. The world is full of hypocrites. And a hypocrite will try to project onto you the thing that he or she is more guilty of. That's what you see here in this chapter, in the first five verses. I knew a man once who was a professing believer who denounced the sin of homosexuality, as he should, as we should, But when he was exposed as a homosexual himself, I was asked to pick up the class he was teaching on the book of Romans. When I got into his class, I was able to find out where he had left off with the class by asking the class, because he had been expelled, as he should have been. And when I picked up his class, they said, well, he just finished chapter one. Do you know what is in chapter one of Romans? About homosexuality? And I picked up in chapter two. Would you turn to Romans chapter two? So after he has been teaching Romans chapter one, and I don't know what he said, I am sure he knew the Bible very well. He had gone to seminary with me. But look at what it says in chapter two and verse one. Therefore, in other words, based upon what you just read in chapter one, therefore thou art an inexcusable old man, whosoever thou art that judgest. For wherein thou judgest another, thou condemnest thyself. For thou that judgest, doest the same things. Go on to verse 21. Thou therefore which teachest another, teachest thou not thyself? Thou that preachest, a man should not steal, dost thou steal? Thou that sayest the man should not commit adultery, dost thou commit adultery? Thou that abhorrest idols, dost thou commit sacrilege? Thou that makest thy boast of the law through breaking the law, dishonorest thou God. With verse 23 in mind, turn back to Acts chapter 23. Let's finish reading verses one through five. Paul addresses the council in verse one. Paul earnestly beholding the council said, men and brethren, I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. And the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. Then said Paul unto him, God shall smite thee, thou whited wall, for sittest thou to judge me after the law and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law. Remember Romans 2, 23, and Paul saying to him, do you sit there to judge me after the law and command me to be smitten contrary to it? What would you call Ananias? A hypocrite. Verse four, and they that stood by said, Revilest thou God's high priest? Then said Paul, I wist not, brethren, that he was the high priest. For it is written, thou shalt not speak evil of the ruler of thy people. Projection is the action of projecting the light onto someone else for what you yourself are guilty of. You see, if you can point to somebody else about what they're doing. Others are going to think, well, you surely wouldn't do what you're telling them is wrong. That's called projection. To take the light off of yourself, you allege that person to be guilty of something that you yourself are even more guilty of. It's what Jesus talks about in Matthew chapter 7. You see a brother who has a speck in his eye? What are you supposed to do? Take the beam out of yours. He is talking about this very thing. Take the beam out of your own eye. He starts that passage off with, judge not that you be not judged. And the leftists, the liberals, they like to use that to say, see, you're never supposed to judge. That's not what it says. Because Jesus gives us the context in the verses that follow Matthew 7. In verses two to five, he says, now, you see that speck in his eye? You make sure you don't have a beam in yours. When you can remove the beam out of yours, then you can see clearly to take the speck out of his eye and complete the judgment that does need to take place. Projection. It's what the left politically is so adept at in doing in our country, projecting onto someone else that they themselves are more guilty of. But hypocrisy, folks, does not just exist in the secular world or in the political world, it exists in the religious world. It exists in churches. And we can point out the hypocrisy out there all day long, but let's talk today about the hypocrisy in here. The council is mentioned in verse one. The council is a word that appears eight times in the four gospels. 14 times in the book of Acts, who is constantly bringing before them the apostles and the Christians, it's the council. That's the King James word for Sanhedrin. The word Sanhedrin does not appear in the New Testament, but it does in the Greek. In fact, it's the Greek word sunedrion, Sanhedrin. The Sanhedrin was the supreme Jewish court of justice that was based in Jerusalem. It was the highest Jewish tribunal. It was, so to speak, the Jewish Supreme Court. And it was composed of a highly respected body of 71 Jewish leaders. Both Pharisees and Sadducees alike were in this council. The acting high priest was as such always the head and the president. So who's the president of the Sanhedrin here? Ananias. He's the so-called president. He's the head. The chief priest when Jesus was crucified was Caiaphas. Here in the time of Paul, it's Ananias. This is not to be confused with the Ananias who helped Paul regain his sight mentioned in the previous chapter. And these 71 members of the Sanhedrin were arranged in a semi-circle so that they could see each other. So it would be like, it would almost be like you being the Sanhedrin, but you over here would be coming up this side closer to me, you closer to this side, and I standing in judgment of the Sanhedrin would be right in the midst and I could look you over here all the way around this way. The church clerks, yeah. The clerks would be seated right over here taking record of what was being said. So here they are standing there. As the Kiliarch had arranged to go back to chapter 22 and verse 30 on the morrow because he would have known the certainty whereof Paul was accused of the Jews, the Kiliarch loosed him from his bands and commanded the chief priests and all their council to appear and brought Paul down and set him before them. So here's Paul standing before this Sanhedrin. Paul here encounters the hypocrisy of injustice when he unintentionally offends a member of the Sanhedrin. Let's see this. First of all, you see in verse one, an incredible claim, an incredible claim. When you read this, isn't this almost unbelievable that a man could say what Paul says here? I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Hey, wait, what do you know about Paul? What did he do before he was saved? And yet he says, I have, as if to say all my life, I've lived in good conscience before God, even until this very moment. Could anybody here claim the same thing? Paul did. There's not some kind of a secret thing in the Greek that says that this isn't what he was saying. That's exactly what he's saying. Look at his confidence. I see his confidence when you look at how he's described at looking at the council. All right, 71 people. We have maybe 50 here today, add about 20, 21, and you stand right in the middle of them where they're looking at you as in, you know, you're supposed to presume innocence, but what do you think they're doing with Paul? And they're earnestly beholding him. How many of you are able to stand before a group of people, let's say 71 or even this group, and earnestly behold them? You know what that means? That means that he is intensely gazing at them. That word is used all throughout the book of Acts, many times about Paul. He was good at not diverting his eye. He was not ever shifting his eyes going, you know, looking down. He is looking these men in the eye, intensely gazing. He's confident. His eyes are not darting about. That word, earnestly beholding, Describes the Sanhedrin and what they're doing to Stephen in chapter 6 and verse 15 They're earnestly beholding Stephen and the Bible says there in 615 That they saw his face as if it were the face of an angel you too would earnestly gaze at somebody who looked like that God had promised this to Ezekiel in chapter three and verses eight through nine. Behold, Ezekiel, I have made thy face strong against their faces. Fear them not, neither be dismayed at their looks. I have many times used that passage in the pulpit because you don't see what I see. And sometimes the looks that I get are like knives Because I may have said something or didn't say something or I may have, who knows? And I've told you about the time years ago when we were still in elementary school and our former pastor was out there and he had his arms crossed and he would just look at me like he was ready to kill me. Going through my devotions, I saw this passage and so I did the same thing back. Paul told Ezekiel, you know, I've made your face strong against their faces. Do not fear them and don't be dismayed at their looks. That phrase, earnestly beholding, describes the apostle Paul in chapter 13 and verse nine. Remember Eliamus, the sorcerer who was trying to divert somebody from coming into the faith? And the Bible says that Paul went to him and intensely gazed into his eyes and said, you child of the devil. I mean, read it. Paul's confidence. Let me ask you something. Can you look intently into the eyes of an unbeliever who needs the gospel and be heard? Not mumbling, not talking quietly, but to be heard. Can you look intensely into the eyes of a believer If not, is it perhaps due to a guilty conscience? Not Paul. His eyes are fixed as he makes an incredible claim. And here's where we see not only his confidence, but his conscience. The last part of verse one, his conscience. Now conscience, and I'm quoting Stuart Custer on this, conscience is that internal standard of right and wrong that tells each person to do what is right. Your conscience does not define what is right, and thus it needs to be educated by scripture. Remember, your conscience does not tell you what's right. You think it tells you what's right based upon how it has been educated. Whereas we put it this way, the conscience does not set the standard, it only applies it. And so you make application all the time according to your conscience and how it's been educated. We talked a lot about conscience a couple of years ago in the adult Bible class. But notice Paul's conscience here, and I want you to see how he says what he says. We're gonna break it down because he says, he makes this incredible claim. I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Let me break it down in this way. Quantified and qualified. Quantified, he says, I have unto this day. So we see that from the past, he says, I have. And that indicates that what was true in Paul's past has continuing results to the present day, not just since he became a Christian. Even before he became a Christian, he said thus of himself in Philippians chapter three, touching the righteousness which is in the law, blameless. You talk about somebody who on the outside lived a life that was blameless. It was the Apostle Paul. He had not violated his conscience before salvation. And what was he doing before he was saved? What was he doing in the book of Acts? What was he doing to Stephen? What was he doing to the Christians? He was persecuting them. He was throwing them all into prison with a good conscience. How could somebody do that? Well, how was he educated? How was he educated? From the past I have, to the present, unto this day, his outward life had not violated Jewish law. And so what he's saying here is the allegation you're making against me, I've lived in good conscience all my life, until this day. So what you're alleging me to be guilty of is not true. So that's the first thing he says, I am not guilty. So there's the conscience quantified. Look at it, qualified. Here's the quality of his conscience. I have lived in all good conscience. And then he says, before God. Let's look first of all at the status of his conscience. It was lived in all good. Commentators make much of the word lived and so they ought because it's not the word that you would typically think of translated lived in the Bible. It literally means I have conducted myself as a good citizen. His whole life as seen therefore by men. He means that he has lived as a true and loyal Jew. And when he says good, that's as opposed to guilty. He is not guilty. The Jews had condemned him, but Paul's conscience had not condemned him. It took confidence to look these men in the eyes and say what he said. Now, just to be sure, he is not claiming sinless perfection. He is not claiming a sinless conscience. Have you ever read Romans 7 where he talks about the struggle he has inwardly? The things that I would do, I don't do. The things I shouldn't do, I do. So there's that struggle going on. That's not what he's talking about. He's talking about his outward life and how he has conducted his life with a good conscience, even in persecuting believers. For example, go to Acts chapter 26. Note what he said, speaking before the king in verse nine of Acts 26. I verily thought with myself that I ought to do many things contrary to the name of Jesus of Nazareth, which things I also did in Jerusalem and so forth. I really thought that's what I should do. You see, his conscience did not condemn him here. I verily thought that I should do this. John chapter 16 and verse 2 is a prediction by the Lord Jesus Christ who said, the time cometh that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God's service. They can do it with a good conscience. Have you ever read of religious peoples down through history who would burn people at the stake all in a good conscience? They literally thought they were doing service to God. That was the Apostle Paul. Paul himself puts it this way in 1 Timothy 1.13, I was before now a blasphemer and a persecutor and injurious, but I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly in unbelief. The point is this, folks. It is possible for you to claim that you have a good conscience. and not even be saved. Think about that. Although Paul acted on a good conscience, he did so because his conscience had been misinformed. And once he was informed by none other than the word of God, Jesus Christ himself, that what he was doing was persecuting him, He humbled himself and accepted Christ. A good conscience is not evidence of salvation because Paul had it before he was saved. Now, should a Christian have a good conscience? Absolutely. You may have a good conscience, but it is only as good as who informs it. And I'm gonna talk about who in just a minute. So there's the status. When we talk about the quality of his conscience, there's the status of his conscience. But now look at the standard of his conscience. What should be the standard of every person who says they have a good conscience? Before God. Many would claim to have a good conscience, but not before God. So a good conscience is relative. A good conscience according to whom? According to what? Your conscience is only as good as its teacher who informs it. The books you read, the books you read are educating your conscience. The news media you listen to is educating your conference. The people you hang around with are educating your conscience. You tend to make decisions as good or bad based upon the people you're around, the books you read, the media you listen to, the church you go to, is educating your conscience. So you may have a good conscience, and it'd be totally wrong. I say again, your conscience is only as good as its teacher. Who informs it? Notice I didn't say what informs it. Because intelligent beings, not things, are behind what informs. You've often heard, well, I just follow my conscience. It's kind of akin to that phrase, just follow your heart. You ever heard that phrase? Just follow your heart. Even Christian parents tell their kids, you know, just follow your heart. That is such foolish counsel. Why? Because the heart is deceitful of all things and desperately wicked. Who can know it? Do not follow your heart. Do not follow your conscience unless your conscience has been informed by the word of God. Therefore, follow the word of God. And always make sure that your conscience is educated by the word of God. It is possible, folks, to die with a good conscience and wake up in hell. Because somebody told you there are many roads to heaven, but they all lead to heaven. You've been miseducated. Read what the Bible says. There are two roads. One is wide and one is narrow. One leads to eternal destruction. One leads to life eternal. Now, having been corrected, what are you going to do? Paul has an incredible claim here. I have lived in all good conscience before God until this day. Had he, while on the road to Damascus, rejected what Jesus said and continued, knowing what he had been confronted with by Jesus Christ, what would his conscience be? You see, once a person has heard the gospel and rejects it, God may use that gospel to make their conscience bug them. It's called a guilty conscience. And that's what every man needs before he can truly be saved. So we see first of all, an incredible claim. Secondly, we see in verses two to three, an inflamed confrontation. You see with the incredible claim that the apostle unintentionally makes in verse one, he offends the high priest, which causes this inflamed confrontation and it's inflamed. Look at Ananias's command in verse two, the high priest Ananias commanded them that stood by him to smite him on the mouth. It's interesting that the language used here doesn't mean that he just slapped him once. It means that it's a repeated action. Kind of like, not just a. And what the high priest Ananias commands here fits the description of Ananias given by the historian, the Jewish historian, Josephus. Do you know what Josephus says of Ananias? And you'll read this in all the commentaries, you'll read this in all the dictionaries about what kind of a man was this Ananias. Let me read you this description. This Ananias became rich by sending his henchmen to steal tithes of regular priests. He cooperated with the Romans. and with assassins to gain his own ends. He would have people killed. He arranged the murder of the Lord's brother, James. He was sent to Rome on charges of cruelty, but was acquitted. That's this Ananias. And he's having Paul slapped for offending him by what he said. So there you see Ananias' command. Look at Paul's complaint in verse three. Then Paul said unto him, God shall smite thee. Now Ananias had Paul smitten. Paul uses the same word about what God's gonna do to you, Ananias. God shall smite thee. Literally, God is about to smite you, Ananias. Whoa, folks, listen. I don't believe the Apostle Paul is intentionally prophesying this. I believe that he is using prophetic words though. And so you see his prophetic words there. God is about to strike you. And then he likens him to something. Thou whited wall. Literally, you whitewashed wall. Why would he call him a whitewashed wall? Well, do you remember anything about whitewashed something or another in the New Testament that Jesus talked about? He talked about whitewashed tombs that were then are full of dead men's bones. And you Pharisees, that's what you are. You're like a bunch of whitewashed sepulchres, you scribes, you hypocrites, you Pharisees. A whitewashed wall though. Hey, if you've got a wall that's about to crumble, but you don't wanna tear that wall down, you see all the cracks and everything, you can just whitewash that wall, you hide the cracks and hide all the things that are wrong with that wall to conceal the cracking and the crumbling. In other words, it's a wall that's about to fall, but you whitewash it. It looks fine on the outside, but on the inside, it's weak. deteriorating. Paul's words were prophetic. Looking down the years from what is said here, in about a year, Ananias was deposed. Within 10 years, he was dragged out of a sewer where he was hiding and assassinated. Paul's words were prophetic. God is about to smite you, Ananias. There's his prophetic words, but look at his pointed words. For sittest thou to judge me after the law, and commandest me to be smitten contrary to the law? Ananias is a hypocrite. He sits to judge Paul after the law, but acts as he himself is above the law. F.F. Bruce in his commentary says that the rights of defendants were carefully safeguarded by Jewish law and they were presumed innocent until proven guilty. Paul had not yet been properly charged, let alone tried and found guilty, and yet Ananias the hypocrite had him slapped across the face in violation of the law. And it's ironic, and note the word ironic, that in the previous chapter there was a secular man who worked for a secular institution, the Roman government, that Paul had just faced. And that man was concerned to deal with Paul lawfully. When he found out who Paul was, backed off. It is ironic that Claudius Lysias, who did not know better when he almost unlawfully scourged Paul. Ananias, though, he does know better, and he unlawfully strikes him on the mouth. You know, sometimes the world, even the government, shows up people who claim to be religious by upholding the law. So here's that inflamed confrontation. And I told you to remember the word ironic, because in verses four to five, that's what you have. Paul makes a confession, but it's an ironic confession, in my opinion, and I wanna make clear, in my opinion, because there's a lot of opinions. About verse five, a lot of opinions. But I want you to see, first of all, the accusation of Paul in verse four. They that stood by said, revilest thou God's high priest? I find it interesting that here the council ignores Paul's pointed question about the unlawful action from their leader, and instead they divert the attention to either the metaphor that Paul used about the whitewashed wall, or the logic he used about being stricken contrary to the law, or both. They're ignoring that. And he's accused of reviling. Here's the question. Did Paul really revile the high priest? Did he really? That's what he's being accused of. But folks, he's also being accused of having brought a Gentile into the temple. Did he really revile the high priest? You see, to revile someone is a serious offense. Paul himself says this in 1 Corinthians chapter 6, know you not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God, be not deceived. Then among other things that he names, he says, neither revilers shall inherit the kingdom of God. Paul, knowing that reviling is unscriptural, do you think he really did it? Just because he's accused of reviling does not prove that he was reviling. He knows that reviling the high priesthood is unscriptural by quoting the verse in Exodus chapter 22 and verse 28 that says, thou shalt not revile the ruler of your people. So there's the accusation of Paul in verse four. But now I want you to see Paul's answer. The answer of Paul in verse five. I wist not, brethren. I wist not. That's a King James phrase for I didn't know. Literally, I had not known that he is the high priest. Now folks, understand something. He did know Exodus 22, 28. But he did not know Ananias is high priest. How do you take it? Lots of opinions here. I'm gonna give you mine. And I want to make clear, it's my opinion, so I'm not dogmatic. Pretty dogmatic, but not to the end. So I'm going to give you the first three reasons that people give that I think, I don't see how that works. Here's the first reason. I call it the issue of vision. People said that the Apostle Paul had poor eyesight. You see where this is going? For example, quote, perhaps Paul did not recognize the high priest because of weak eyesight, end quote. Here's the man who was earnestly beholding the council. I don't think that one flies. Here's the second issue, it's the issue of identification. You see, Claudius Lysias in chapter 22 and verse 30 had thrown this council together in what appeared to be a last minute thing, and therefore the priest didn't have time to don their priestly garments, especially the high priest, and he wasn't there with his high priestly garments, so Paul wouldn't be able to tell who was the high priest. Now folks, I'm looking at a crowd of 50 people, and in 70, it's not that many more, and I can look and I can see, even with my glasses off, that that's Dave way in the back seat. So they say Paul could not easily identify the high priest. But let me ask you something. Who else but the high priest has the authority to command that he be struck? Thirdly, there's the issue of change. They say that the high priesthood changed frequently. You know, like a president changes every four years here. So it's kind of hard to keep up with that, isn't it? Did you ever wake up going, who's president today? I don't. I go, oh no. I thought it was 2018. But it's not, it's 2024. And the one they're putting forth as president, oh no. I even wake up with that. Ananias has been the high priest since AD 47. It is now AD 57, 58, so how long has he been in office? And Paul doesn't know who he is. He doesn't know who the office holder is of the Supreme Court, the highest one. By the way, how many of you could name the nine justices of our Supreme Court? I could if I had some time to think about it. But I can go with John Roberts, I can go with Kagan, I can go with, you know, the others that we had just put in. Barrett, so I'm getting started. As I think about it, they come to mind. And yet Paul, who's a Hebrew of the Hebrews, can't think of who the high priest is. Doesn't make sense. Especially one like this, a raunchy character. So I think those first three reasons are eliminated by the fact that they portray Paul, a careful Jew, of carelessly saying something before the council. I don't think so. Furthermore, do you see the Apostle Paul admitted that he reviled? He quotes a verse about it, but does he admit he did it? And do you see him asking for forgiveness here? No. So there's the fourth issue. It's the issue of character. Perhaps he spoke with irony. Many say, John Calvin, F.F. Bruce mentions it, Isby mentions it, the International Standard Bible Encyclopedia, and many others say perhaps he spoke with irony in reference to the character of this high priest. In other words, quote, How could I respect him as high priest, one who acts so unworthily of his sacred office? How could I speak with respect to such a man? In other words, it would be like what we would sometimes say, you certainly wouldn't know he was the high priest the way he did what he did, would you? And it's that fourth one, Even before I prepared for this message, I thought that was it. But I considered the other three as open possibilities. But in the end, I thought, no. The Apostle Paul's confronting him. He did not violate, and I think this because he would not have violated the good conscience he just claimed that he had. With a good conscience, he pointedly rebukes the high priest for his unlawful action. And he doesn't apologize for reviling the high priest. And he's able to very readily, I mean, it just comes to his mind as a Jew, as a Hebrew of the Hebrews, that the verse in Acts 22 just comes to his mind just like that, and he quotes it. By the way, from the Septuagint, he quotes it. Knowing he's not in violation of it, even as he's saying it. Can you imagine him thinking about that verse and doing the opposite when he's doing it? And you compare the character of Ananias the High Priest with that of Claudius Lysias the Ciliarch, and how Paul had been very careful to talk to the chief captain, Claudius Lysias, very respectfully. Why? Because what Claudius Lysias did, he did so in ignorance, just like the Apostle Paul had done what he did in ignorance. But Ananias the High Priest is willfully, presumptuously, slapping him against the law that he claims to uphold. Such a man should be rebuked. As Paul later says to Timothy, that others also may fear. What he does, he does in good conscience. Folks, it's important for you as a believer to maintain a good conscience before God. Like the Apostle Paul, unlike the high priest Ananias, Paul wrote this to Timothy in chapter one in verse five of his first epistle to him. The end of the commandment is love out of a pure heart, a good conscience, and a non-hypocritical faith. He calls it unfeigned in the King James. In 1 Timothy 1.19, he says, holding faith and a good conscience, which some, having put away concerning the faith, have made shipwrecked. They have not been holding a good conscience, and they're shipwrecks today because they act against their conscience. Folks, can you say here this morning, I have lived in all good conscience before God since the day I was saved. Okay, maybe not. Can you say since five years ago? I have lived in all good conscience since five years ago. Okay, maybe not. Can you say I have lived in all good conscience in this last year? Maybe not. Can you say, I have lived in all good conscience this month of July, 2024? Maybe not. Can you say, I have lived in all good conscience since last week? It's that outward life. I'm not talking about that inward struggle that you have. I'm talking about your outward life and how you live before men, before God, outwardly. you will find very few Christians who do that. Constantly, constantly acting against their consciences. And I'll tell you something, that's why they don't come to a church like this. Because when you preach messages that are as pointed as this is, yeah, I don't like that. You see, your level of Christian confidence may be tied to your conscience. Are you able to look sinners in the eye with the gospel of Jesus Christ? If not, it may be due to a bad conscience or a guilty conscience. And who is the standard for your conscience? Because remember, your conscience is only as good as the one who informs it. Your conscience may be telling you that you're right with God. And even when you walked in here, but now that you've heard God's word, how is it? How's your conscience today?