Argument XXIII
I n an attempt to justify the sin of seeking out unbelievers who profane the Sabbath and paying them to work on his behalf, David C. Pack advances what just might be the most contrived argument in the history of this debate. According to this COG leader, God only prohibited the Israelites from gathering manna on the Sabbath, not from gathering food altogether. He anchors this theory on a horrible distortion of one of the most significant events in the life of the Messiah. Furthermore, he contends that the Almighty's instructions regarding Sabbath meals were only in effect for as long as manna was being provided. Once it ceased, God's people were then free to do whatever they deemed necessary to feed themselves on holy time. Mr. Pack doesn't offer one drop of legitimate scriptural evidence to support this nonsense. He just declares it a "Biblical fact."
We realize this COG leader will deny our characterization of his words, but their message comes through loud and clear. One only has to consider why he offers them to understand their meaning. Mr. Pack wants God's people to believe that they may now solicit the labor of Sabbath-breakers and pay them to acquire their food as well as to prepare it on holy time. In order for that to be true, he must prove that this practice has never been a sin—at least not since the completion of the manna miracle.
Taking Dave Pack Seriously
This particular argument is where we at Blow the Trumpet stopped taking Dave Pack seriously. Quite frankly, his words reek with so much arrogance it is palpable. Furthermore, It grieves us to say this, but everything about his approach to this issue suggests that he isn't the slightest bit interested in what his Creator commands regarding the Sabbath. He is only interested in himself and having his way (Pro. 3:5). To achieve his purpose there is no depth to which he will not stoop.
Like all his arguments, this particular fable is built on a mountain of deception, distortion, and misrepresentation, all designed to circumvent God's Great Moral Law. Quite frankly, it should deeply offend every true believer. It certainly offends God Almighty.
We encourage you to read the comments that follow very carefully. This is because they contain some of the most subtle distortions of the Biblical record ever offered by a man claiming to be God's servant. We begin with Mr. Pack's assertion followed by our response.
David C. Pack:
"As we conclude the topic of the Pharisees condemning Christ and the disciples for gathering food on the Sabbath, we repeat the fact that their main objection (evidenced by the subsequent replies by Christ) was their “servile work” in the gathering of food. It is significant that these carnal Pharisees were savvy enough not to invoke Exodus 16 to bolster their position. It was obvious to all familiar with God’s laws that the prohibition against gathering manna did not apply to gleaning on the Sabbath to relieve hunger."
Our Response:
In this brief paragraph, Dave Pack advances several distortions of the Biblical record. Consider the following.
Item I
Contrary to what Mr. Pack claims, Jesus NEVER picked, nor ate, anything Himself—only His disciples did. Here is how Matthew records this truth.
“At that time Jesus went on the Sabbath day through the corn; and His disciples were hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat” (Mt. 12:1).
Luke's account of this event is even more explicit.
"And it came to pass on the second sabbath after the first, that he went through the corn fields; and his disciples plucked the ears of corn, and did eat, rubbing them in their hands" (Lk. 6:1).
Additionally, the accusation advanced by the Pharisees centered around the disciples' behavior, not the Messiah's. Their exact words were:
"Behold, Your disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the Sabbath day." (Mt. 12:2)
An Important Question
This now brings us to a very important question. Why would Mr. Pack argue that Jesus participated in gleaning on the Sabbath when the scriptures clearly state that He did no such thing? The answer is simple but very telling. This self-proclaimed apostle is so committed to winning his point that he would intentionally misrepresent the Biblical facts in order to do so. In this particular case, he knows the Messiah would never do anything that went contrary to God's law. Therefore, if he (Dave Pack) can somehow convince God's people to accept his claim that Jesus picked the grain along with His disciples, it would prove his contention that acquiring small amounts of food on the Sabbath is not wrong. However, if Jesus never did such a thing, Dave Pack's argument loses its most powerful exhibit—the Lord of the Sabbath Himself.
At this point it is interesting to note that this is not the only time Mr. Pack suggests that Jesus participated in gleaning on the Sabbath along with His disciples. When offering his explanation of Nehemiah's condemnation of Jerusalem's Sabbath behavior he made the following observation.
"Dining out at restaurants...is comparable to Christ and His disciples gleaning corn to be eaten on the Sabbath..." (see: Nehemiah Never Bought It)
Mr. Pack also offered this explanation of Matthew 12 when commenting the specific act of the disciples picking grain on the Sabbath.
"In Matthew 12, Christ and His disciples were immediately accused of breaking the Sabbath when they acquired some grain. (see: Jesus Condoned It)
Clearly Mr.Pack's distortion of the Biblical record is not simply a slip of the pen. It is not an honest mistake. What he has done is calculated and willful. Furthermore, his approach to proving his point is manipulative to the extreme. First, he wilfully misrepresents God's word as opposed to "trembling at it" (Isa. 66:2). That alone should give everyone pause to think. Secondly, he assumes that God's people can be fooled into accepting his comments as "Biblical facts" when the scriptures state something completely different. In essence, he is relying on a belief that no one will know better and simply not check out his claim. In other words, he is betting on their ignorance. This bluff may work in "Texas Hold-em" poker, but in the issues of life, it is insulting.
Furthermore, Mr. Pack's approach possesses an extraordinary irony concerning a man he claims to respect so deeply. Unlike Mr. Herbert W Armstrong, who exhorted his audience, "Don't believe me; believe your Bible," Mr. Pack proclaims, "Don't believe your Bible; believe me!"
Item II
Mr. Pack claims that because the Pharisees never mentioned Exodus 16 they never considered it in their accusation. However, what this COG leader subtly omits is that the Pharisees never mentioned any verses, nor did they identify any specific trespass. Their accusation was simply that Jesus' disciples did that which was "not lawful" (Mt. 12:2).
Item III
Dave Pack asserts that the issue in the minds of the Pharisees was labor. He claims to base this on Jesus' response to their accusation. What he omits to acknowledge is that when the Messiah defended His disciples He invoked two examples—one involving Sabbath labor (the Levites) and one involving the acquisition of food (David and the shewbread) where no labor is mentioned. In truth, based on Jesus' response, it is reasonable to conclude that the Pharisees accusation included both Exodus 20 (a prohibition against labor on the Sabbath) and Exodus 16 (a prohibition against acquiring food on the Sabbath).
Item IV
Mr. Pack claims that the Pharisees' indictment centered around "servile" work. However, what he fails to acknowledge is that the fourth commandment does not mention "servile work" but rather ALL work—servile or otherwise (Ex. 20:10). In that regard the Sabbath command is identical to the command regarding the Day of Atonement, which also says, "NO WORK" (Lev. 23:30-31). Furthermore, God warned that anyone who performed any labor on that day (with the exception of the Levites) would be "destroyed from among His people" (vs. 30). When it came to the weekly Sabbath, labor was also a capital crime (Ex. 31:14-15). That's how serious the Almighty is about this day. Dave Pack, on the other hand, teaches that he may contract the labor of unbelievers to do his work for him. Furthermore, he claims that he may do so with God's blessing.
Regarding "Servile" Work
The "servile" work Mr. Pack refers to actually does exist and is mentioned in connection with the annual holy days other than the day of Atonement (see: Lev. 23). God's word declares that on the high days "servile work" is prohibited, but not work altogether. This is because the Almighty did allow food to be prepared by His people on these days (see: Ex. 12:15-16). However, even then He prohibited His people from purchasing their meals (Neh. 10:31) or having them prepared by others (Ex. 12:16). When it came to the weekly Sabbath, no such provision was made. On that day, He absolutely forbade His people from any labor or the solicitation of labor (servile or otherwise).
Mr. Pack manipulates this truth because he wants God's people to believe that modest labor involved in acquiring and preparing meals is an acceptable Sabbath practice and violates no law. Therefore, dining out at a restaurant must be acceptable as well. This of course, flies in the face of every word contained in the Biblical record. Consider what God's word says.
Item V
Mr. Pack contends that "the prohibition against gathering manna did not apply to gleaning on the Sabbath to relieve hunger." He even claims that this "fact" was obvious to all who were familiar with God's law. He makes this statement because he is under the illusion that the disciples never broke any law when they picked grain on the Sabbath. What he fails to acknowledge is that 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 were treacherous, they weren't stupid. These men were acutely aware of the provision in the Torah permitting gleaning by the 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. Mr. Pack's assertion that everyone understood that "light" gleaning was permissible, is categorically FALSE. No one knew any such thing, because it wasn't true. There isn't a syllable in God's law that says otherwise.
Furthermore, contrary to what Mr. Pack implies, Jesus never challenged the Pharisees' understanding of the law, but rather their understanding of MERCY. The truth that seems to be so elusive to this COG leader 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 Mr. Pack does today. Tragically, this man wants to turn the Messiah's extension of mercy into a license to sin in order to indulge his own appetite. He should be ashamed of himself.
Mr. Pack's assertion that it has always been permissible with the Lord of the Sabbath for God's people to acquire their Sabbath meals on holy time is TOTALLY FALSE. Jesus never said any such thing, nor did He imply it—in either word or deed. Furthermore, Mr. Pack's scriptural trickery is nothing less than a cynical attempt to manipulate scripture as well as manipulate God's people.
For additional information on this particular point see: Jesus Condoned It.
David C. Pack continued:
"By way of review, as manna was first given to Israel, the instructions were to gather enough manna on the sixth day to cover for the Sabbath, as well—enough for two days (vs. 23). Note this instruction specifically applied to the gathering of manna [nothing else]. Then, Exodus 16:25-26, 29 continued with further instructions to not gather manna on the Sabbath."
Our Response:
Here, Mr. Pack is suggesting that God's purpose in Exodus 16 was to protect manna, not His Sabbath. According to this reasoning God allows His people to dine out but prohibits them from ordering a coriander seed muffin with honey when they do (Ex. 16:31). Does anyone honestly believe such reasoning? However, this COG leader offers it in a desperate attempt to excuse his practice of seeking out slaves to sin (Ro. 6:16) on the Sabbath and paying them to labor on his behalf (Neh. 10:31). All he has to do is stay away from manna.
David C. Pack continued:
"As noted above, gleaning [other food] in order to fill one’s hunger on the Sabbath was not forbidden for all time, especially after manna was to cease at some future time."
Our Response:
Mr. Pack is not the only one to advance this argument in defense of his sin. One of the largest splinter groups expressed this same view in a letter to Dennis Fischer, co-author of A Sabbath Test. Here is how they put it.
"You ask, 'Why would God allow His people to procure ANY food on His Sabbath when He actually prohibited the children of Israel from doing such a thing when they wandered in the Sinai desert (Ex,16:16-25)?' The simple answer is that God does not deposit manna on our property six days a week."
What Dave Pack and other leaders assert in this argument is despicably arrogant and shows utter contempt for God as a provider. The fact that He no longer rains down manna does not mean He no longer gives us our daily bread (Mt. 6:11). In essence, what Mr. Pack is saying is: "God, if you want us to not acquire or prepare our food on your Sabbath, then you need to keep providing us with manna the other six days. Otherwise, we have no obligation to obey you in this matter." Can you imagine the audacity of such a statement?
God's command regarding the acquisition and preparation of food on His Sabbath is so clear that only the defiant would conclude otherwise. Furthermore, when David C. Pack advances his theory on this point, he must rely on a patent rejection of the obvious.
Argument XXIV
"Yeah Buts & What Ifs?"
Return to Directory
|
