Argument V
Nehemiah Never Bought It
When advancing their case in defense of dining out on the Sabbath, the UCG offers an interesting slant on what Nehemiah meant when he prohibited the Jews of his time from buying and selling on God's day. According to their thinking, Nehemiah's indictment was only against God's people setting up businesses on the Sabbath as well as spending the entire day purchasing goods and services. This prominent COG group then argues that spending an hour or two enjoying a meal at a restaurant does not come close to that practice and therefore must be acceptable with God. Here is how they put it.
"There is a huge difference between opening up a market or going to market on the Sabbath day and eating a meal in a restaurant." UCG
What the UCG fails to say is what God Almighty thinks of that restaurant and what it is doing on holy time. At no time do they admit that operating such a business on the Sabbath is an egregious evil that God abhors. Additionally, they omit some very important questions relating to this issue. For example: Would Nehemiah have permitted restaurants to operate during his day or would he have closed them down too? Furthermore, would Nehemiah have commanded the Jews of his day to cease and desist from buying their goods? Finally, if restaurants today are desecrating what God made holy, why would any minister of that God teach His people to patronize such sin? In other words, why purchase the fruit of this sacrilege?
Although the UCG makes every attempt to persuade God's people to believe that Nehemiah was only concerned about the complete and total abandoning of the Sabbath by the Jews in Jerusalem, they fail to concede the obvious. There is not one chance in a trillion that Nehemiah would not have shut down every restaurant or diner in the city. Furthermore, there is not one chance in a trillion that he wouldn't have commanded the Jews to cease and desist from buying their goods.
It is interesting that when describing what was taking place on the Sabbath during Nehemiah's day, the UCG paints a picture that looks remarkably similar to our world today. Regrettably, they believe that God's people can go out into that world on the Sabbath, if they only do so for an hour or two. We at Blow the Trumpet think this is madness.
As you proceed through the UCG argument, ask yourself if the true God makes a distinction between a restaurant operating a business on His Sabbath from a supermarket doing the same thing. If you conclude that God wants them both closed down on this day, then why would any of His people want to go near them?
United Church of God:
Nehemiah 13:15-21
To understand this section of Scripture, we need to understand what was going on at the time. Ezra had arrived in Jerusalem from Babylon in 457 B.C. (the seventh year of the king). The temple had been built earlier, but things were in disarray by the time Ezra arrives. He oversees a correction of the people in the area of marriages to strange women. The Jews had begun to marry the people in the surrounding areas. Ezra put an end to this during his time in Jerusalem, but it did not last.
Nehemiah was the king’s cupbearer (or special assistant) when he heard of the difficulties in Jerusalem. The king gives him his leave to travel to Jerusalem to resolve the problems that exist. He is named governor for Judea. This was now the 20th year of the king or 13 years after Ezra had gone to Jerusalem. He finds things again in disarray. The temple was not being maintained, the wall had not been rebuilt and Jerusalem was a broken-down city. Nehemiah brings about another reform, similar in some ways to the one brought about by Ezra. He also set about to rebuild the wall around Jerusalem. They finished building the wall in 52 days, in spite of the many obstacles that were put before them (Nehemiah 6:15). After the wall was rebuilt, another reform was instituted by Ezra and Nehemiah. Ezra read from the law to the people (Nehemiah 7) and the people responded positively. After this, Nehemiah proposed a covenant for the people. This covenant agreement is outlined in Nehemiah 9:38 through 10:29. “And because of all this, we make a sure covenant and write it; our leaders, our Levites, and our priests seal it. Now those who placed their seal on the document were: Nehemiah the governor, the son of Hacaliah and Zedekiah…” (Nehemiah 9:38 to 10:1). There were seven distinct expectations for the Jews in this covenant (Nehemiah 10:29- 39):
1. Obedience to “God’s Law, which was given by Moses the servant of God”(Nehemiah 10:29).
2. No marriages with the inhabitants of the land.
3. Any wares brought into Jerusalem would not be purchased by the Jews on the Sabbath day or any Holy Day.
Note From Blow the Trumpet
Although the UCG only mention "wares" when identifying what was not to be purchased on the Sabbath, Nehemiah also mentioned "victuals" (food). (see Ne. 10:31)
~~~
4. Land was to rest in the seventh year and all debts forgiven according to the year of release.
5. There was to be a temple tax to take care of the upkeep of the temple.
6. The Levites were to receive the tithes and the firstfruits.
7. The Levites were to contribute a tithe of the tithe to the temple.
Some of these can be found within the “law of Moses,” but some go beyond the law itself. In the case of the Sabbath, this is the first mention of a prohibition concerning commerce on the Sabbath. Jewish scholars contend that it was the first time the issue of buying and selling on the Sabbath was even addressed."
Our Response:
Apparently the UCG derives great consolation from the belief that because Nehemiah is the first to mention the words "buying" and "selling" on the Sabbath, this prohibition doesn't carry much weight in Sabbath observance. This is similar to the Protestant community claiming that there is no mention of the Sabbath as a commandment prior to the time Israel was delivered out of bondage in Egypt. Therefore, there was no obligation to keep it prior to the fifteenth century BC.
The fact that a sin is not mentioned before a certain point is not proof that it did not occur, let alone that it wasn't a sin. With that said, here is what was declared by God Almighty nearly a thousand years before Nehemiah leveled his rebuke to the Jews in Jerusalem. It is interesting to note that God used the acquisition and preparation of food on the Sabbath to make His point.
The Manna Principle
When God delivered the children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt, He introduced them to His Sabbath. This was done prior to giving them the Ten Commandments. In the sixteenth chapter of Exodus He explains how He planned to nourish them physically. He would do so by providing them with food every day--with the notable exception of the Sabbath. He would not rain down manna on the seventh day because that day was holy. Just as He rested from His labor on the first Sabbath during creation week, He never ceased the practice.
God then gave His people three specific instructions concerning food on this day. Furthermore, He said that these instructions were given to prove whether His people would obey His law (Ex. 16:4). The three instructions God gave were:
1) Food was not to be acquired on the Sabbath
2) Food was not to be prepared on the Sabbath
3) His people were not to leave “their place” on the Sabbath.
In reality, the UCG position on this issue contradicts every aspect of God’s command with respect to eating on His day. Consider what they advocate. First, they assert that they may acquire their Sabbath meals on the seventh day by purchasing them at a restaurant. They also assert that Sabbath meals may be prepared for them by chefs who profane this day. Finally, they teach that God's people may go outside their community of faith to procure their food as well as to consume it. It is interesting that the phrase "going out to eat" is used when describing this activity.
However, the greatest tragedy is that this prominent COG group believes Nehemiah would have concurred with their judgement. Notice how they continue to describe what was taking place during his time.
United Church of God Continued:
Nehemiah leaves Jerusalem and returns to the king for “certain days” (Nehemiah 13:6). Later when he returns to Jerusalem he finds that virtually all the agreements reached previously had been abandoned. This grieved him immensely. He cried out to God to remember him for the good he had done and not the end result that he saw in Judah (Nehemiah 13:14).
Nehemiah saw the evil that was being done by the high priest in giving a room in the temple to Tobiah. He became so angry that he threw all his belongings out of the temple area. He then reopened the treasuries for the tithes. He saw people treading grapes on the Sabbath—working in clear violation of the Sabbath command (Exodus 20:8-11; Deuteronomy 5:12-15). They were loading up their produce and bringing it into Jerusalem to sell. They had again made the Sabbath a market day. All of these activities mentioned here (Nehemiah 13:15-17) dealt with a market day. This is not a restaurant nor does it have anything to do with eating a meal. It was a market day! Notice the items mentioned here: wine, sheaves, grapes, figs, provisions (corn and other items of sustenance), fish and “all kinds of goods.” The Sabbath had become the one day in the week for going to market.
The prohibition was against setting up a market on the Sabbath or a Holy Day. There is no mention of eating or not eating on the Sabbath. The Jews had made the Sabbath a secular day in which it was acceptable to go to market. Going to market was an all-day activity. In most ancient societies (as well as in several areas of the world today) a whole day was set aside as the day for market because it took so much time.
Our Response:
What the UCG advances here is a great deception. First, they conveniently omit Nehemiah's command that the Jews were not to buy ANYTHING on the Sabbath (Ne. 10:31). This is because doing business on the Sabbath is an act of desecrating the holy. God's point was that He didn't want His people to touch this sin.
Second, the UCG boldly declares that Nehemiah makes no mention of dining out on the Sabbath. But is this true?
The word “victuals” used in Nehemiah’s indictmen comes from the Hebrew word tsayid. This word means, “game,” “lunch,” or that which is “taken in hunting.” This being the case, Nehemiah was excoriating the Jews for buying FOOD on the Sabbath. The UCG may assert that it would have been great amounts of food, but that is pure speculation, not to mention irrelevant.
At this point, it is also important to note that those who were selling food on the Sabbath were "non-believers" just like those who work in restaurants today. They were from the city of Tyre.
There dwelt men of Tyre also therein, which brought fish, and all manner of ware, and sold on the Sabbath unto the children of Judah, and in Jerusalem. (Neh. 13:16)
These vendors did not know God. They were totally ignorant of His law and His plan for man. However, this “shortcoming” was irrelevant to Nehemiah. To him, ignorance was no excuse. This truth is born out in the action he would take.
At this point, it is important to understand that there were numerous options available to this servant of God. For example, he could easily have reasoned: “These people are going to sell their products regardless of what we do. Therefore, what difference does it make?” Or, he could have said, “We are not causing them to work. They would be working anyway.” Finally, Nehemiah could have drawn his conclusions based on the practice of his predecessors. He could have thought, “Other respected men of the past have purchased foodstuffs on the Sabbath, why should I pass judgment in such a thing? After all, it will only stir up contention.”
Each of these responses was available to this leader of God’s people so very long ago. Furthermore, they remain so to the leaders in God’s Church today. Sadly, today many of God’s ministers seem content to take a different path than that taken by Nehemiah. They either balk at becomming involved or apply convoluted reasoning when confronting this issue.
However, the faithful and uncompromising Nehemiah did not hesitate when addressing what he saw was an egregious evil—and make no mistake about it, that is exactly how he viewed buying or selling on the Sabbath. To him this practice represented a mortal threat to God’s people. Furthermore, he realized that the very future of his nation hung in the balance on this issue. Therefore, He took immediate action. Notice what he did.
Then I contended with the nobles of Judah and said unto them, "What evil thing is this that ye do, and profane the Sabbath day? Did not your fathers thus, and did not our God bring all this evil upon us and upon this city? Yet ye bring more wrath upon Israel by profaning the Sabbath." And it came to pass, that when the gates of Jerusalem began to be dark before the Sabbath, I commanded that the gates should be shut, and charged that they should not be opened till after the Sabbath: and some of my servants set I at the gates, that there should no burden be brought in on the Sabbath day. (Neh. 13:17-19)
With these words, Nehemiah was warning Judah that they were in captivity in no small part because they had profaned the Sabbath. Specifically, they were buying and selling on that day.
God’s servant was so concerned over this sin that he took what could only be regarded as radical measures. He expelled the street vendors from the city. Furthermore, when they returned the following Sabbath, Nehemiah was furious. He actually threatened them with physical force if they dared to return to sell their products on God’s day.
So the merchants and sellers of all kind of ware lodged without Jerusalem once or twice. Then I testified against them, and said unto them, "Why lodge ye about the wall? If ye do so again I will lay hands on you." From that time forth they came no more on the Sabbath. (Neh. 13:20)
The example of Nehemiah’s uncompromising love of God’s law is a great lesson for all Christians everywhere. This champion of faith boldly confronted those who were complicit in causing God’s people to profane His Sabbath. His remedy was forceful and reflected God’s thinking about engaging in commerce on the day He made HOLY. Furthermore, God not only abhorred this practice then, but His opinion on the subject has not changed to this very day.
Despite all the parsing of words, the real point Nehemiah was clearly making in his indictment was that Judah should not take part in any commercial business on the Sabbath – nor were they to patronize such businesses on this day. Any other understanding is simply manipulating the scriptures in an attempt to advance one’s personal preferences.
Today it would be impossible to do what Nehemiah did during Judah’s captivity. God’s people do not have that kind of power or influence. Therefore, they couldn't possibly lock out restaurants to prevent them from selling their products on the Sabbath. However, God’s people can do something else. They can lock the vendors out of their lives on God’s day. Regrettably, many, including their leaders, don’t.
Counter Argument
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
These merchants [referred to in Nehemiah 13] were knowingly defying the Sabbath in a culture where Sabbath-keeping was a legally protected national custom. This is not the case in our culture today. We do not consider eating out on the Sabbath as paying for "the fruit of their sacrilege." Much of the food sold in grocery stores may have been harvested or packaged on the Sabbath. By your definition, these products would also be "the fruit of their sacrilege."
The account of Nehemiah's encounter with the merchants selling merchandise on the Sabbath illustrates the importance of keeping the Sabbath holy by not treating it as an ordinary day for marketing or shopping. However, we do not believe it is possible to equate this problem with eating out on the Sabbath. The conditions that existed then were in some ways more similar to those of the millennial rule of Christ than to conditions in our culture today. The Sabbath was part of the law of the land, which Nehemiah had authority to enforce. The nation was being restored to the worship of the true God after having been in captivity. These factors do not exist today.
God's people today are a minority group seeking to live God's way in a world that rejects many of the laws of God, especially the true Sabbath. We are widely scattered, which often requires traveling many miles on the Sabbath to attend services. Church pastors have to travel even more, which could result in the need to purchase fuel on the Sabbath (which by your reasoning is making unbelievers labor on the Sabbath to serve us).
These are not excuses for not keeping the Sabbath, but these and other factors pose challenges to Sabbath-keepers to determine how to keep the Sabbath in a way that will result in the blessings that God intended the Sabbath to give us. We believe that the key to achieving these positive results lies in understanding the basic principles of the Sabbath and determining how to apply those principles in the context of our culture, not by taking specific instructions from Old Testament passages that relate to very different and even unique historical contexts.Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
What is it about our culture today that makes the UCG believe they have no choice in this issue? After all, they don't dine out on the Day of Atonement. Does our culture somehow change on that day? And what about the pressure many employers apply to God's people regarding working an hour or two after sunset on Friday?—this also is a reality in our current culture. Should God's people cave into this as well? After all, it is not as if they would be treating the entire day as a work day.
This portion of the UCG letter further illustrates the lengths people will go to when justifying their behavior—and contrary to what they assert, these are EXCUSES. They are a slick way to manipulate God's word in order to engage in a behavior simply because it gives them pleasure. Once again, these UCG leaders attempt to blur the lines between an innocent act and their sin. This is done so that they can engage in sin and still claim to be innocent. They even go so far as to suggest that what Blow the Trumpet does at a super market during the week is no different than what they do at a restaurant on God's Sabbath. They then attempt to manufacture hypocrisy in Blow the Trumpet's position on the strength on the words "may have." Notice what they wrote.
Much of the food sold in grocery stores may have been harvested or packaged on the Sabbath. By your definition, these products would also be "the fruit of their sacrilege."
In these two sentences the UCG argues that there is no difference between us going to a market on Monday and purchasing food that "may have been" the product of Sabbath labor, and them going out to a restaurant on the Sabbath where it is absolutely essential that profane labor be done. In other words, in order for them to dine out on the Sabbath, they absolutely need someone to break God's law. We, on the other hand, don't require any such thing. Furthermore, there is no Biblical prohibition against purchasing products that may have come into contact with Sabbath labor, provided the labor wasn't done at your request. When it comes to dining out on the Sabbath the UCG is placing an order that they fully expect to be filled by profaning holy time.
More Self-Justification
The UCG then argues that if God's people had the authority to shut down businesses on the Sabbath like Nehemiah did, they (the UCG) would do so. However, because they have no such authority, God now approves of them paying these Sabbath-breakers to labor on their behalf on holy time. They do this despite the fact that God's Sabbath law shouts out that what takes place in a restaurant every Sabbath is an egregious sin.
Tragically, what the UCG fails to understand is that they do have the power to emulate what Nehemiah did. If these leaders honestly read what took place in Jerusalem when this great servant took action, they would discover that he expelled the merchants from the city. That's right! He kicked them out—including the men of Trye who did not know the true God. He then warned the Jews that if these Sabbath-breakers returned to do business on Holy time, God's people were not to purchase any of their wares or food products—NOT ONE THING (Neh. 10:31).
Emulating Nehemiah
Today God's people can do just what Nehemiah did. They have the power to lock the merchants out of their lives on the Sabbath. They also have the power to not buy their goods and services. However, because the UCG is so intoxicated with this practice, they ignore the enduring moral principle revealed in this powerful lesson taught by Nehemiah's bold action. Therefore, instead of locking merchants out of their lives on the Sabbath as Nehemiah did, the UCG actually seeks them out and embraces their sin as a necessary enhancement of Sabbath observance. To me, that is pathetic.
More Concerning Nehemiah
The UCG also contends that what took place in Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah involved turning the entire Sabbath into a market day and therefore, doesn't apply to them. They then imply that Nehemiah would not have had a problem with the Jews just spending an hour or two paying Sabbath-breakers to make them a meal on holy time.
This is an argument that would make any criminal defense attorney proud. The strategy is really quite simple. Find a way to prove that it is impossible to obey God in this matter because the scriptures are not specific enough to address their particular situation. This tactic can almost always work if one is creative enough. For example, if the Jews during Nehemiah's day were only eating lunch at a restaurant on the Sabbath, the UCG could argue that the scriptures are silent about going out to breakfast or dinner. After all the Bible only mentions lunch. Or, if people were buying meat on the Sabbath when Nehemiah rebuked them, the UCG could argue that it doesn't say you can't buy vegetables.
What these leaders are doing in this phase of their argument is attempting to convince the Church that when Nehemiah said that God's people were not to buy ANYTHING on the Sabbath or Holy day (Ne. 10:31), what he really meant was don't spend all day shopping. Personally, I believe Nehemiah's actions proclaim that he didn't want God's people to come into any contact with merchants on God's Sabbath. That is why he expelled them from the city. They had come within the gates of Jerusalem and profaned what God had made holy. Nehemiah forced them outside the city gates. Consider his actions in light of the fourth commandment concerning the "stranger within your gates" (Ex. 20:10, Dt. 5:14).
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Blow the Trumpet states:
"What the UCG fails to say is what God Almighty thinks of that restaurant and what it is doing on holy time. At no time do they admit that operating such a business on the Sabbath is an egregious evil that God abhors. Additionally, they omit some very important questions relating to this issue. For example: Would Nehemiah have permitted restaurants to operate during his day or would he have closed them down too? Furthermore, would Nehemiah have commanded the Jews of his day to cease and desist from buying their goods? Finally, if restaurants today are desecrating what God made holy, why would any minister of that God teach His people to patronize such sin? In other words, why purchase the fruit of this sacrilege?"
Neither would the United Church of God today, if the city were under its jurisdiction. The Bible, in I Corinthians 5:12, says: "For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside?" Here members were permitted to eat with such persons outside of the Church, but not in the Church. This recognizes the different expectations between those whom God is calling and those He has yet to call.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
In this brief installment of their letter, the United Church of God claims that if they had the authority to prevent restaurants from operating on the Sabbath, like Nehemiah did, they would shut them down. However, because they do not have that authority, they claim they may now seek out these Sabbath-breakers and pay them for their services on this day. In other words, when it comes to dining out on the Sabbath, the UCG has found a way to have their cake and eat it too. It is interesting that in other places of their letter the UCG characterize restaurants as providing a much needed service on God's Sabbath. Personally, I find it difficult to reconcile these two positions. I also find it inconceivable that Nehemiah would ever think such a thing.
A Different Standard
The UCG then employs Paul's letter to the church at Corinth to "prove" that because the responsibility of God's Church is to judge its own behavior, not the behavior of those outside the community of faith, these COG leaders don't have to concern themselves with any alleged sin that might take place in a restaurant on the Sabbath. What they are implying with this deception is that because those who work in restaurants are outside the community of faith, what they do on the Sabbath is irrelevant. Once again this is done in an attempt to sell God's people on the idea that it is acceptable with the Almighty for His children to seek out unbelievers who profane His Sabbath and actually pay them for this sacrilege.
At this point it is important to understand that the passage (I Cor. 5:12) cited by the UCG in defense of this view has absolutely nothing to do with paying unbelievers to prepare their Sabbath meals. Paul never engaged in, nor did he ever advocate such a practice, and the UCG knows it. The point Paul was making is that God's people should not fellowship with brethren that are engaging in acts of moral depravity (i.e. fornication, extortion, idolatry, drunkenness), which had infested the church. When it came to God's people interacting with such people outside the church, Paul said, "Its not my job to judge them. God is their Judge" (v. 13).
What Paul was saying in effect was: "If a member of God's Church is knowingly engaging in sin, don't associate with him. As for those outside the church, it is impossible to not do so because they are everywhere." If you applied Paul's teaching to the Sabbath it would sound like this: "If a member of God's Church is knowingly profaning the Sabbath, don't associate with him—on any day. However, even though your unconverted boss profanes the Sabbath, you may still work for him." What Paul was NEVER suggesting is that because your boss breaks the Sabbath by laboring, you may feel free to solicit his Sabbath-breaking services. For the UCG to suggest otherwise is TOTALLY FALSE.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
P.S. It is interesting that the UCG still refuses to say what God thinks of the Sabbath activities engaged in by restaurant personnel, let alone acknowledge His contempt for such things.
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
The Blow the Trumpet paper mentions "seven distinct expectations for the Jews in this covenant (Nehemiah 10:29-39)." The second one listed is "no marriages with the inhabitants of the land." Yes, Nehemiah had them put away their pagan (unconverted) wives. But Paul judged differently concerning unbelieving spouses: "If any brother has a wife who does not believe, and she is willing to live with him, let him not divorce her" (I Corinthians 7:12). Corinth was heavily pagan. However, Paul's judgment was different because circumstances were different, i.e., these couples were already married before they were part of spiritual Israel. Again, one should not assume that every prohibition in Nehemiah must be administered in the same way today.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Here, the UCG argues that because Paul's judgment regarding marriages to unbelievers was different than Nehemiah's, God's Church may now seek out Sabbath breakers and hire them to prepare their meals on holy time. What they fail to mention is that although Paul mentions marriage, he is absolutely SILENT with respect to paying unbelievers to prepare your Sabbath meals. Why?—because Paul NEVER endorsed such a practice. For the UCG to try to equate two entirely different acts is typical. They diligently seek out any New Testament teaching that is different than that found in the Old Testament so that they may claim that ALL the rules are different. The cold hard TRUTH is that Paul never intimated such a thing.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Blow the Trumpet says:
"Ask yourself if the true God makes a distinction between a restaurant operating a business on His Sabbath from a supermarket doing the same thing. If you conclude that He wants them both closed down on this day, then why would any of His people want to go near them`?"
Does God want transportation businesses closed down on the Sabbath? Clearly, many types of businesses that are open on the Sabbath in our world today will not be open during the Millennium. There is also a clear difference between doing one's grocery shopping on the Sabbath and eating out in a restaurant instead of in one's home, though apparently you are unable to see that difference.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
What the UCG is arguing with respect to this point is that there is a huge difference between a supermarket and a restaurant but absolutely no difference between a city bus and a restaurant. Furthermore, they contend that if God’s people can spend money to take a bus to church because they have no other choice, then they should be able to make Friday evening dinner reservations three weeks in advance at a five star restaurant. After all money is money.
At this point it is important to understand that the sole purpose of UCG’s doctrinal paper is to manufacture “proof” supporting their belief that God’s people may seek out Sabbath breakers at restaurants and solicit their labor on holy time, as long as it only requires an hour or two. They anchor their position on the supposition that that because the Jews in Nehemiah's time were "allegedly" spending the entire day in a marketplace, God would not possibly be concerned if they were just purchasing their daily meals from a local food merchant. Therefore, dining out at restaurants on the Sabbath must be acceptable with their Creator. Believe it or not, this is what they want you to accept.
I'm just curious, but what if the Jews were playing golf all day on the Sabbath? Would the UCG argue that it would be acceptable with God if they just went to a nearby driving range for an hour or two? According to their logic, there would be a huge difference in these two behaviors as well.
The truth of the matter is that when it comes to the Sabbath, what takes place in a restaurant and what takes place in a supermarket is a distinction without a difference. Both of them contradict God's law. Nehemiah understood this and his actions confirm that he saw their services as a clear breach of the fourth commandment.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
P. S. With respect to the comment regarding public transportation, I honestly believe that although God would modify their Sabbath operation, He would not shut them down as the UCG rhetorically asserts. This is because they represent an essential service, especially in larger metropolitan areas. As was stated in an earlier response, I believe that if their operation was deemed necessary, local governments, under the direction of God’s servants, could arrange for shuttles to be operated by part time volunteers and offered without charge. Their hours of operation would be greatly reduced and their routs would be limited to conveying God’s people to and from services or other Sabbath functions. I am absolutely convinced that such an approach is in total keeping with the spirit of God’s Sabbath law. Restaurants however, are another issue entirely.