Argument XI
The Scriptures are Silent
United Church Of God
Vs
A Sabbath Test
When defending the practice of dining out on the Sabbath, the United Church of God claims that the scriptures are silent on this issue. Therefore, this prominent COG group contends that God's people may now go out into spiritual Egypt where the Sabbath is being desecrated by slaves to sin and actually purchase the fruit of this sacrilege. Here is how they express this point, followed by our response.
United Church of God:
There is nothing in the Sabbath commandment about eating in a restaurant or not eating in a restaurant. This was not an issue that needed addressing in the time of Moses. One must be careful in developing rules for Sabbath observance that are outside the bounds of what God has given.
We would conclude that you are the ones guilty of making up rules for Sabbath observance that are "outside the bounds of what God has given" and that defining eating out on the Sabbath as not acceptable with God falls into that category. We do not feel that you have proven your points in your paper for the reasons that we have presented.
Our Response:
Here is what the UCG conveniently omits when advancing their point. When God gave the Ten Commandments to the children of Israel, He had already introduced them to His Sabbath. Furthermore, it was not by accident that when doing so, the Eternal presented very specific instructions regarding their Sabbath meals. In short, God prohibited them from: 1) acquiring their meals on the Sabbath, 2) preparing their meals on the Sabbath, and 3) going outside their place (the camp) on the Sabbath (see Ex. 16). A few weeks later when presenting these emancipated slaves with His great moral law, the Ten Commandments, God reinforced His position concerning Sabbath labor. Simply put, it was NOT to be done, under penalty of death (Ex. 31:14)—even livestock were to be released from labor.
God's Sabbath law was clear and resolute. The Israelites were not to come into contact with profane labor on holy time, let alone seek it out and purchase it. Furthermore, everyone INSIDE the camp was bound by that law. In other words, no one could labor on the Sabbath or sell the fruit of that labor on God's day—PERIOD.
At this point, it is interesting to note that when Nehemiah powerfully addressed the profaning of God's Sabbath by the Jews in Jerusalem, he locked non-believers (men of Tyre) out of the city. He also rebuked the nobles of Judah for allowing them access to Jerusalem on the Sabbath in the first place. Nehemiah also made it absolutely clear that God's people were not to engage in labor on His Sabbath, nor were they to patronize labor on this day. He commanded them, in no uncertain terms, to not buy ANYTHING (Neh. 10:31). There was no limitation to this directive.
For the UCG to claim that the there is nothing in the fourth commandment regarding going to restaurants is a disgraceful attempt to manipulate language. God's law addresses Sabbath meals in a way that leaves no room for the scriptural trickery employed by UCG's doctrinal committee. Furthermore, these men would be well advised to take their own advice about making up "rules for Sabbath observance that are outside the bounds of what God has given." And make no mistake about it: teaching that it is acceptable with their Creator to seek out the services of Sabbath breakers and pay for their sin breaks all records in making things up.
Counter Argument
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
If Scripture were as clear as the Blow the Trumpet paper states, then the disciples would not have plucked heads of grain on the Sabbath.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Although the UCG contends that the prohibition against harvesting crops on the Sabbath did not apply to gleaning small amounts of grain to relieve hunger, Jesus implied just the opposite. If what the disciples did was lawful, why would the Messiah cite the examples of David and the Levites in their defense? Jesus readily acknowledged that both David and the Levites did that which went contrary to God's law (Mt. 12:3-5). If this wasn't also true of the disciples, why did Christ invoke these particular examples? Why didn't He simply argue that no law had been violated?
Something to Think About
At this point, it is important to understand that although the Pharisees, who accused the disciples, were treacherous, they weren't stupid. These men were acutely aware of the provision in the Torah permitting gleaning by a stranger or the poor on another man's property (see: Lev.19:9, Deut. 23:25, 24:19). However, they also knew that this provision did not extent to gleaning on the Sabbath, regardless of how little was gathered—and Jesus understood this as well
If the UCG carefully studied this event they would discover that Jesus never challenged the Pharisees' understanding of the law, but rather their understanding of MERCY. The truth that seems to be so elusive them is that the Messiah considered His disciples "guiltless," not because of what they did, but because of why they did it. These men were genuinely famished, just like David—and like David, what was done to remedy it was unquestionably a once-in-a-lifetime act, not something that could be planned out and done periodically, as so many do today.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer