“Human Kindness, Human Nature, Truth”『人情‧人性‧真理』

Gal 2:11-14, 8/28/2005【Victor Lin 譯】

^.^★★ ~^^~~☆~^.^~~☆★★ ~^.^~~☆ ☆~^.^~

◎Introduction: Arrangement of Priorities

Today’s sermon topic is “Human Kindness, Human Nature, Truth”. If these three matters are associated with the numbers 1, 2, aned 3, where 1 represents the most important; and 2 represents the second, or secondary importance; and 3 represents not so important. If you were to arrange them in order, how would you arrange them? (Please let some people here express and share their views)

Today’s scripture reading provides us a profound reflection in our spiritual life: in terms of human kindness, human nature and truth, in comparison of these three matters, do we tend to sympathize more with human kindness, and the weakness of human nature, and tend to neglect the truth? Today’s scripture will tell us how we should behave when some Christians “are not acting in line” and “not according to the truth of the gospel”? Is it to keep one eye open and one eye shut? To contain as far as possible and forgive? Or to point out their mistake according to the truth? Today, as we celebrate the Lord’s holy communion and sit at the Lord¡¦s table, it is a very good opportunity for us to engage in examination of oneself.

◎Can eating a meal produce problems?

The Antioch church had many Gentile Christians, people of different races filled its presence and the atmosphere was both friendly and harmonious. Frequently after each meeting, everyone dined together in fellowship. Thus, Peter who had just arrived at Antioch was very quickly assimilated into this warm atmosphere. However, today we see from the scripture that Paul and Peter had a conflict that occurs at the dining table.

Eating a meal is at its origin a very happy occasion. Taiwanese have a saying that goes like this, “Eating a meal is as the emperor is big”, the meaning is that eating is a very important consideration. Today Holy Bible tells us that Paul got upset at the dining table and was hostile toward a person, and the person who Paul directly opposed was Peter. Paul is a “yes is yes, and no is no” type of person. As soon as he saw Peter had deviated, Paul immediately pointed out Peter’s mistake in front of a big crowd of people, saying clearly and openly, and did not save face for Peter’s sake. It is because Paul took the issue of eating lightly, but he treated matters of truth very seriously!

◎What is the thought in Peter’s heart?

Verse two of chapters 12 tells us the cause of the conflict. Several people from Jerusalem arrived at Antioch. Before they had arrived, Peter and the Gentiles ate meals together. According to the Old Testament law, Jews are forbidden to eat impure food (Leviticus 11), but the gentiles did not follow such restrictions. They ate anything that they liked to eat. But the Jews did not want to eat meals with the gentiles because they did not know the origin of the gentile’s food. To avoid eating impure food, they chose not eat with the gentiles. But in New Testament times, Christ has discarded in the old regulations; bring the Gentiles and the Jews together as one (Ephesians 2:11~18). God also used a vision to allow Peter to eat what he had thought was impure things and inspired him to soften his heart for admitting the Gentiiles (Acts 10:9~16; 11:2~10).

The question is this. If Peter had believed in his heart that eating together with the Gentiles was a behavior that would violate the laws and regulation, then Peter should not have eaten together with the Gentiles. But since God had allowed him to see a different vision, Peter should have understood that eating with the Gentiles was certainly not wrong, which explained what he did was right. But, why when some people arrived from Jerusalem to Antioch in Syria, Peter quickly discriminated against the Gentile brothers and sisters and pretended to not have done such a thing. In verse 12, Paul specifically pointed out Peter is afraid of the group of people who were circumcised. All Jews, even Barnabas fell into hypocrisy.

Why did Peter fear those who had received the circumcision? To explain this, one has to know the atmosphere in Jerusalem, where there existed a partiality to those who observed the circumcision. His behavior unintentionally conveyed the thoughts in his heart, also unintentionally affected the people by his side. The Holy Bible said in verse 13 that, “The other Jews joined him in his hypocrisy, so that by their hypocrisy even Barnabas was led astray.”

This shows that Peter was very easily preoccupied and become influenced by the environment. The New Testament in the Bible tells us that Peter at least has two times where he exhibited negative leadership at “the critical moment”, and some other people confusingly followed him. In chapters 21 of John, after Jesus was nailed to the cross, Peter led others back to fishing and some disciples followed him. In order to restore Peter, the Lord asked him three questions, and again encouraged him to follow him. In Ephesians chapter two, Peter’s hypocrisy led others to join him in hypocrisy.

◎Is Paul’s response too excessive?

Did Paul need to make Peter into an opponent publicly over the matter of eating? Did Paul need to cause Peter embarrassment over the matter of sharing a meal? I think that Paul certainly did not hope to do such things. Nevertheless the reason that Paul condemned Peter in front of public is not simply to fuss over an eating issue, but is to stand up for gospel truth. If we could let Paul prioritize human kindness, human nature, and truth, I believe that his order would be: truth -> human nature -> human kindness.

Paul criticized Peter. It was not to criticize the matter of Peter and Gentile eating a meal together, but was to criticize the Peter¡¦s part as a church leader who behaved hypocritically in front of people, misled others and whose action did not match the gospel truth. The Holy Bible tells us in verse 14, when Paul “saw that they were not acting in line with the truth of the gospel ” (v.14), he criticized them. According to our idea today, perhaps Paul should have kept one eye open and one eye shut toward his colaborer Peter. Furthermore, Peter helped Paul on the subject of Gentile faith in the Lord at the Jerusalem conference. Paul owed a Peter human kindness. Therefore it would have been better if Paul had just in “private room” secretly and politely discussed the matter with Peter and not raise the matter in a public situation. If we hold on to such idea, then human kindness, human nature, and the truth are all jumbled together, causing the life of the church to suffer a very big attack. In the church, pointing out right and wrong is always is a painful matter. It requires lots of courage and psychological preparation. However, if the church does not separate right from wrong, how can it give a holy testimony?

Augustin said that, “Mistake which are carried out in public, should not be corrected in private.” Paul’s response did not go too far. Perhaps Paul was the only one who had the courage to criticize a leader like Peter in the presence everyone. In fact we should thank the Lord for Paul’s loyal letter. If he had kept one eye open and one eye shut in Antioch, the matter could have passed, everybody could have lived in peace with each other, and perhaps the gospel truth would have become unclear. However, how many people are able to understand Paul’s steadfastness and intention.

After this matter Peter did not harbor resentment toward Paul. When Peter wrote “II Peter “, the correspondence still commended Paul (II Peter 3:15~16). This kind of mind can be a good example for colaborers.

◎Secret Worry of Compromise: After the Jerusalem Conference

How can a situation such as the one at Antioch occur? In any event, when an affair finally gets to the bottom of the matter, a decision must be made. The cause of matter is: In the Jerusalem conference, the final resolution is one kind “the tendency towards compromise”. All compromises hide some questions. The Jerusalem conference resolution is: the Jews may live a Jewish life, observing the circumcision, the regulations and laws. But the Gentile may avoid the regulation and circumcision. However the matter could not continuously go down this path, because the church would inevitably produce two different ranks of Christians. Churches would frequently encounter the same question that Antioch bumped into. How can the Judeo Christians who carry out circumcision live together with the Gentile Christians who do not abide by the old laws and regulations? How church leaders like Paul and Peter set the standard for the Antioch church would be the topic that all must face.

◎Favortism, human nature, truth: church self-examination and response.

Since Jesus ascended to heaven, in the last 2000 years, church conflicts and lack of harmony frequently revolves around favoritism, human nature, and the truth. Too much attention to “favoritism” or friendship can blur the focal point of the truth, causing people not to see the clear truth of the matter. Too much sympathy with the weakness of human nature can cause people to forever not grow up, to shirk from responsibility, and to rationalize away the results of weakness. Too much emphasizes on “the truth” can also make people hardhearted and unfeeling. Then, how should the present day church deal with the three aspects of human kindness, human nature, and the truth?

We can seek the way to an answer from the history of the church. On October 31, 1517, German theologian Martin Luther (1483-1546) wrote an “Atonement Document” to the church to question and to protest. He wrote the famous “95 Theses” in Latin and nailed it to the gates of the Wittenberg church, hoping that the church leaders and theologians would respond and publicly debate with him. It was very obvious that the church had a head-on collision with question of favoritism, human nature, and truth. The conveniences of printing method allow the “95 Theses” to reverberated throughout the entire Europe. Pope’s authority and the church source of wealth received a serious challenge.

In 1521, on April 18th, afternoon at 6 PM, Luther and Johann Maier Eck (1486-1543) debated. Emperor’s representative asked him, whether he would admit to his mistake and to take back his published opinion. Luther replied that, “Only if the Holy Bible or reason clearly convinces me, I am restrained by the Holy Bible, my conscience is tied up in the word of God. I cannot and is not willing to take back any opinion, because it would violate my peaceful conscience, and it is not right. I cannot do such a thing. This is my standpoint, may God help me!”

The first thesis of Martin Luther¡¦s 95 theses is: “When our Lord Jesus Christ say: “You must repent” (Matt 4:17), his wish is that the followers would for a lifetime be devoted to repentance.” The last, the 95th thesis: “And thus be confident of entering into heaven rather through many

tribulations, than through the assurance of peace. (Acts 14:22).” Luther’s 95 theses begins with the most basic “repentance”, next comes “peace”, and finally ends with “entering into heaven”.

This points out clearly that in regards to favoritism, we need to repent; in human nature, we need to be peaceful; and in truth, we must be steadfast so that we can enter heaven.

◎Conclusion: The gospel truth not only can rescue us but can also correct us.

From today’s Holy Scripture reading we know: understanding the truth is one matter, but conforming to the truth can be a different matter; a person whose thoughts and actions are not in harmony will have many difficulties. If we do not act positively, can be revealed immediately by the correct path. The gospel truth not only can rescue us, but can also correct us.