David C. Pack
vs
A Sabbath Test
Thirty Deceptions
"The Third Five Lies"
The Eleventh RCG Deception:
“Consider the following account, which typifies the sentiment of many in ancient Israel: “Hear this, O you that swallow up the needy, even to make the poor of the land to fail, saying, When will the new moon be gone, that we may sell corn? And the Sabbath, that we may set forth wheat, making the ephah small, and the shekel great, and falsifying the balances by deceit? That we may buy the poor for silver, and the needy for a pair of shoes; yea, and sell the refuse of the wheat?” (Amos 8:4-6).
At least these Israelites, however reluctantly, waited until the Sabbath was over before practicing their deceitful transactions. Perhaps the critics of today would give such people high marks, since they were not involved in buying and selling on the Sabbath (yet they were still involved in wicked practices).”
Response from Dennis Fischer:
Dear Friends, No we wouldn’t give them high marks. Furthermore, there is nothing in A Sabbath Test that suggests otherwise. The authors of this RCG article are simply advancing a belief that is not true. It is, in a very real sense, a cruel DECEPTION—one designed to portray me and my co-author as cold and heartless. They might as well have said we were fans of Adolph Hitler. That would have been about as accurate.
The tragedy here is that TRUTH is the real casualty in the RCG essay. My question to these authors is: how can you draw such a conclusion? Do you really see us as hideous monsters bent on praising evil and cursing good? Just out of curiosity, if you had to stake your salvation on the accuracy of this statement, would you? I ask this because you should know that every word will come into judgment.
The bottom line is this. Art Braidic and I take God at His word when He prohibited His people from acquiring and preparing their Sabbath meals on holy time. The RCG's only defense against our belief is to make things up about us. They do so in order hide their own sin.
The Twelveth RCG Deception:
“Buying from an open-air market during Nehemiah’s time would more accurately be equivalent to shopping at an open farmers market or perhaps a super market today for groceries to last for some duration. In a restaurant, one buys a meal that is consumed at that time—which is not the same as shopping for food and taking it home to be eaten later. Dining out at restaurants, as opposed to shopping in volume for the next day’s meals, is comparable to Christ and His disciples gleaning corn to be eaten on the Sabbath, as opposed to gleaning enough for tomorrow’s meals.
Just as the Pharisees could not discern the difference and, as a result, condemned any and all gleaning done on the Sabbath, critics of today condemn dining out on the Sabbath altogether.”
Response from Dennis Fischer:
Once again, the RCG writers make a claim that is thoroughly contradicted in A Sabbath Test. In a court of law, this would be called perjury—and they have committed it numerous times throughout their essay. The fact of the matter is that we DO NOT condemn “any and all gleaning” on the Sabbath. For those who doubt this consider the following statement from A Sabbath Test.
A Sabbath Test
It is true that Jesus’ apostles picked corn on the Sabbath (Mt.12: 1-8), but noticeably absent from this act was any attempt by Jesus or the apostles to buy it. Furthermore, at no time did they try to hire others to pick it for them and prepare it. What the disciples were doing was tantamount to plucking an apple from a tree and enjoying a piece of fruit during a Sabbath walk. This act may have offended the Pharisees but it did not offend the scriptures. To compare this to going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is like comparing it to harvesting crops on the Sabbath. It simply is not what happened. (A Sabbath Test p. 87)
The practice (not people) we do condemn is the thinking that because Jesus’ disciples picked a handful of grain on the Sabbath, this now gives God’s people permission to seek out unbelievers who trample on God’s holy day and ask them to trample on it for them. This is exactly what the RCG is condoning. They are just calling it something else.
The notion that what Jesus and His disciples did was the equivalent to dining out on the Sabbath illustrates how far some will go to justify their actions. Here the RCG writers are suggesting that if Jesus' disciples would pick grain, rub it in their hands and enjoy a snack during a Sabbath walk, the Messiah would have no problem with them stopping at a Roman tavern and ordering a full meal for themselves and their friends. This is simply a massive leap in logic. The Bible suggests nothing of the sort.
The Thirteenth RCG Deception:
“Consider the following comment from the book A Sabbath Test: “There are some who have suggested that Nehemiah’s indictment is against those doing business with MERCHANTS selling food in open markets, not specifically restaurants. Therefore, in a very technical sense, God appears to be silent on the subject of dining out on the Sabbath” (p. 30; italics ours).
What an amazing (and unexpected) admission! Yet, despite this weak acknowledgement, the authors try to spin the matter in their favor. The quote continues: “But, could this possibly be true? Why would God forbid buying food at a market, while permitting buying the same food at a restaurant?”
TResponse from Dennis Fischer:
Here, the RCG writers contend that my co-author and I have reluctantly conceded that Nehemiah was only referring to buying and selling in large open markets. This is not what we were saying at all. What is being conveyed in this quote is not what we believe, but rather what those who dine out on the Sabbath believe. It is they who are arguing that “in a very technical sense, God appears to be silent on the subject of dining out on the Sabbath” –NOT US. This is made clear by simply following the rest of the thought recorded in our book. Here it is:
A Sabbath Test
But could this possibly be true? Why would God forbid buying food at a market, while permitting buying the same food at a restaurant? The only difference is that the restaurant must labor even more because they must also prepare the food. Why would God make such a distinction? Furthermore, what message does this send about His Sabbath being HOLY?
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.
Later in our book we expand on this issue. Under the heading A Misguided Opinion, we offer the following:
A Sabbath Test:
There are some who argue that the Jews during the time of Nehemiah were not going to a restaurant on this day, but rather were purchasing goods in the open market. Therefore, Nehemiah was not specifically addressing the issue of restaurants in his indictment of the nobles of Judah
However, this argument is only technically true. What was being set up in the city were small booths. There, merchants would offer a variety of products. Some sold handicrafts. Some sold merchandise. However, others were selling food products – and the scriptures bare this out.
The word “victuals” used in Nehemiah’s indictment, 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. This practice was similar to God’s people today buying a meal from a hamburger stand or catering truck. But does this really make a difference? Does anyone honestly think Nehemiah would give a free pass to the Jews if, instead, they were sitting down to eat at a five star restaurant? Tragically, some do. (A Sabbath Test p. 52)
The Fourteenth RCG Deception:
“The answer is simple: Gleaning corn on the Sabbath and eating it on the spot is not the same as gathering food in volume for tomorrow’s meal. Likewise, going to a restaurant on the Sabbath and eating the meal where it is served is different from grocery shopping for large amounts of food. Those who are obsessed with dissecting the letter of the law lose the ability to discern just how much gleaning would be acceptable on the Sabbath. To the Pharisees, it seemed to magnify their “righteousness” by simply condemning any gleaning.”
Response from Dennis Fischer:
There are two massive deceptions woven in this brief paragraph. I have merged them into one because the RCG writers combine them so artfully. I would like to address the second part of this deception first. Here the RCG writers continue to assert that my co-author and I condemn “any gleaning.” This of course is simply not true as has been demonstrated in my response to the RCG’s tenth and twelfth deception appearing earlier in this article.
I’m sure they will continue to make this assertion as long as people will continue to listen to it. However, my guess is that if God Almighty placed them on a witness stand and asked them if they would assert, under the penalty of death, that their statement is true, these writers would confess that it isn’t. Tragically, the truth in this case does nothing to strengthen their argument. Therefore, they have no use for it.
This now brings us to the other half of this deception. Let’s take another look at their words.
“The answer is simple: Gleaning corn on the Sabbath and eating it on the spot is not the same as gathering food in volume for tomorrow’s meal. Likewise, going to a restaurant on the Sabbath and eating the meal where it is served is different from grocery shopping for large amounts of food.”
When introducing this portion of their argument, the RCG writers employ what is commonly referred to as syllogistic reasoning. An example of this type of logic goes like this: If A is greater than B, and B is greater than C, then A is greater than C. This particular example is an appropriate application of this intellectual process. However, there are also perversions of it. For example: Jesus loves children, children love Christmas, therefore, Jesus loves Christmas. In this example something is made to appear true when it not. It is doubtful that anyone in God’s church would agree with the conclusion of the last syllogism. It is fairly obvious that there is a serious flaw in its premise. However, this last syllogism is almost identical to the argument the RCG presents. Notice what they are attempting to persuade you to believe. They argue that because gleaning grain in volume is similar to shopping at a supermarket for a week’s worth of groceries, then it stands to reason that picking a small amount of grain, as Jesus' disciples did is the same as going to a restaurant on the Sabbath. To the RCG writers the issue is the amount of food involved and not how the food was acquired or prepared. They then offer the following observation about my co-author and me.
“Those who are obsessed with dissecting the letter of the law lose the ability to discern just how much gleaning would be acceptable on the Sabbath.”
The Fifteenth RCG Deception:
By their standard, should a Christian not refrain from turning on his lights or air conditioning (electricity) because someone at the power plant must be on the job for this to be possible?
Similarly, what about gas heat in winter? Should not a kerosene space heater—or heating by wood—be used instead? Then, should a Christian refrain from turning on the water, including showering, on the Sabbath so that others are not further burdened (the water is heated by supplied energy)? What about not flushing the toilet, and using a bucket instead, to eliminate any kind of additional work at the sewage treatment plant?
These examples are all under our control. Utility workers must be there to make available the services you are taking advantage of. In doing this, why are you not, therefore, “a partaker in other men’s sins”?
Response from Dennis Fischer:
When I first read this portion of their essay it occurred to me that these RCG writers were not condemning A Sabbath Test at all. They were condemning another book—one THEY had written and also called A Sabbath Test. This other book advanced foolish arguments that could be dismissed without much difficulty at all. In this other book the RCG “authors” contend that real Christians should not even use utilities on the Sabbath. This certainly is an extreme view but there it is right above us in plain sight, for all to see. I must admit that the book I co-authored never suggested what these writers characterize as my “standard.” However they demand that it should be.
In reality this is what the RCG writers are saying: If I and my co-author can use the utilities in our homes on the Sabbath, then they can drive to a restaurant and pro-actively seek out unbelievers who profane the Sabbath and hire them to prepare meals for them. We see a huge difference here.
RELATED LINKS
