Argument I
A Matter of Conscience
The United Church of God introduces their defense of dining out on the Sabbath by suggesting that this issue is a matter of personal conviction, not Biblical mandate. When doing so, they invoke Paul's letter to the Church at Rome to make their point. At first glance, what they say may sound plausible. However, it lacks one very critical component. It anchors its point on an assumption that is found nowhere in the scriptures. As a matter of fact, the UCG intimates something that actually contradicts God's word.
Their argument centers around the belief that because the Bible doesn't specifically mention dining out on the Sabbath, it is therefore silent on this issue. However, nothing could be further from the truth. The scriptures speak with great force regarding how this day is to be honored as well as how it can be profaned. God's word even addresses the acquisition and preparation of food on the Sabbath (Ex. 16). In both cases, the Almighty forbids these behaviors. Despite this fact, the UCG asserts that going out to a restaurant on the Sabbath, where God's holy day is being desecrated by slaves to sin (Ro. 6:16), is somehow a matter of personal choice. Notice how they advance this part of their case.
United Church of God:
The issue of eating out on the Sabbath has been raised occasionally over the years. Clearly Christianity involves personal choice for conscience sake. The apostle Paul took the position that he would not eat meat if it would cause someone to stumble. To eat or not to eat meat was a conscious choice that he could make. The act itself was not a matter of sin. “Therefore, if food makes my brother stumble, I will never again eat meat, lest I make my brother stumble” (1 Corinthians 8:13). There was no reason to force or cause someone to feel badly if he for conscience sake felt he could not eat meat that had been offered to an idol. In the book of Romans Paul offers a statement about conscience. “But he who doubts is condemned if he eats, because he does not eat from faith; for whatever is not from faith is sin” (Romans 14:23).
Our Response:
Imagine for a moment that this debate was not over dining out on the Sabbath, but rather whether one may eat pork or some other unclean meat. Those who believe it is acceptable with God to eat such things could employ the UCG position word for word. They could argue that eating a ham sandwich was a matter of conscience just the same as whether one was a vegetarian or not. As a matter of fact, many Protestants use Paul's words to make that very argument. However, it is doubtful that any member of the UCG doctrinal committee would be persuaded by this use of scripture. This is because Paul is NOT addressing unclean meats in this chapter. He is also NOT addressing dining out on the Sabbath, conscience not withstanding.
Additionally, the UCG states, "The act itself was not a matter of sin" when commenting on Paul's teaching concerning eating meat vs. vegetarianism. By doing so they imply that the same is true about dining out on the Sabbath. They dismiss this issue as simply a matter of choice, thus asserting that going to restaurants on the Sabbath is a benign activity not worthy of judgement. But is this true?
Consider for a moment what is taking place when God's people engage in this behavior. First, they must go out into the world (spiritual Egypt) and consciously seek out those who are profaning what God made holy. They must do this because it is absolutely essential for someone to desecrate the Sabbath in order for them to do what they contend is acceptable with their Savior. The UCG defends this behavior despite the fact that God's word emphatically forbids His people going out of their spiritual camp on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:29. See also Re. 18:4). But it doesn't end there.
Those who dine out on the Sabbath must also direct these Sabbath-breakers to prepare a meal for them according to their specifications. They do this despite the fact that God Himself prohibited food from being prepared on this day (Ex. 16:23). He actually proclaimed that this aspect of His Sabbath law was to test whether or not His people would obey Him (Ex. 16:4).
Finally, those who dine out on the Sabbath must pay the Sabbath-breaker for the fruit of their sacrilege. This is done despite the fact that God prohibited His people from patronizing those who sell their products, including food, on His Sabbath. Furthermore, His prohibition here was all encompassing. It included ALL food. Notice the use of the word "ANY."
And if the people of the land bring ware or ANY victuals (food) on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day. (Ne. 10:31)
Tragically, the majority of God's people, including His ministers, reason that because they can engage in this activity without feeling a tinge of guilt, it must be acceptable with God. But is this born out of Biblical truth or human reasoning?
A Great Misunderstanding
There is a great misunderstanding in the church concerning Paul's instruction regarding faith as recorded in Romans 14. Many have defended dining out on the Sabbath by arguing it is not a sin because they can do it in good conscience. They then cite Paul's words in defense of their point. But Paul said no such thing. He did not say faith makes everything right. He said the absence of faith makes everything wrong.
Sadly, a significant number of God's people incorrectly assume that Paul was making two points when writing about this issue. First, many contend that he was teaching that if you can't do something in faith it would be a sin to do it. This understanding is absolutely correct. That is what the apostle was declaring.
However, some then manufacture a corollary to Paul's words by implying something that is not there. They argue that Paul was also teaching that if something could be done in good conscience it would not be imputed as sin. This is absolutely FALSE. Simply because a person believes something is right does not make it so. If such a belief was true then every well intended sin, such as keeping Christmas, Easter, and even Sunday worship would be acceptable with God. It most definitely is not.
Those who believe their conscience will carry the day concerning this issue are greatly mistaken. Consider the words God inspired Solomon to write.
"There is a way that seems right to a man, but the ends thereof are the ways of death." (Pro. 14:12)
The United Church of God's suggestion that dining out on the Sabbath is a matter of personal belief does not have Paul's words to support it. They simply are not there. To be sure, faith is a driving force in our Christian walk. But faith in sin is worthless.
Counter Argument
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer
Blow the Trumpet states:
"Imagine for a moment that this debate was not over dining out on the Sabbath, but rather whether one may eat pork or some other unclean meat... However, it is doubtful that any member of the UCG doctrinal committee would be persuaded by this use of scripture. This is because Paul is NOT addressing unclean meats in this chapter..."
Here the paper rejects the example of eating meat offered to idols, concluding that it was not a matter of sin (i.e. unclean food) and therefore is not applicable to this subject. However, this example would be germane to the subject if it were sinful, in one context but permissible in different context. Let's further consider the relevance of meat offered to idols here. Different circumstances may have emerged where they were just eating a meal, not endorsing the sinful behavior of those who prepared the meal.
The Bible introduces this matter within the context of sin, as it was a common idolatrous practice. Numbers 25:1-2 says, "The people began to commit harlotry with the women of Moab, They invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods" (emphasis added throughout). Here eating such things was an expression of idolatrous acceptance.
Also Daniel "would not make himself ceremonially unclean" with the king's delicacies and wine (Daniel 1:8 New English Translation The wine could have been dedicated to idols. In the New Testament, Acts 15:20 says: "But that we write to them to abstain from things polluted by idols, from sexual immorality, from things strangled, and from blood." Verse 29 instructs them to "abstain from things offered to idols." Potential idolatrous syncretism could have been the concern.
Yet Paul permitted the eating of meat offered to idols under different circumstances, therefore they were not an accessory to the sins committed while the food was prepared. Each situation has to be weighed individually.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
At this point it is interesting to note that the UCG never explains what the "circumstances" were that prompted Paul to present this teaching. They didn't. But we will.
Furthermore, the facts pertaining to Paul's words on this issue disprove the very practice these leaders are advocating. In truth, he doesn't come close to doing what these learned men suggest. Furthermore, his teaching stands as incontrovertible proof that God's people should NEVER dine out on the Sabbath or holy days. To better understand this, a little background is necessary.
The Jerusalem Conference
One of the most significant events in the history of God's Church took place in Jerusalem in 49 AD. At that time a conference was held pertaining to the issue of Gentile converts and what was required of them as new members of the Christian faith. The conference was prompted by a severe debate that had emerged over the issue of circumcision. As a result, the leading apostles, including Paul, came together to resolve the conflict.
Ultimately, the church concluded that circumcision was not required for salvation, or for inclusion in the body of Christ. However, in addition to this pronouncement, four other decisions were rendered by the conference. Each of these decisions was announced by James, the brother of Jesus, and the bishop of the Jerusalem Church. Notice that James referred to them as "necessary things."
For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us, to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things; That ye (1) abstain from meats offered to idols, and (2) from blood, and (3) from things strangled, and (4) from fornication: from which if ye keep yourselves, ye shall do well…(Acts 15:28-29 see also: Acts 21:25).
While the church leadership agreed that Gentiles were not required to be circumcised, they WERE ABSOLUTELY required to abstain from meat offered to idols! On this there can be no doubt. Furthermore, Paul was in total agreement with this decision and was even commissioned to bring it to the churches in Antioch (Acts 15:22-32).
What did Paul Teach?
The question for us to consider today is: What did Paul teach Gentile converts concerning this ruling? The answer lies in his first epistle to God's Church at Corinth. This letter was written approximately four years after the Jerusalem conference. Therefore, it is obvious that the Gentiles under Paul's care must have been well aware of the church's position regarding this issue. However, there was a problem.
How Can You Know?
Although we do not know for certain what prompted Paul' to write on this subject, it is reasonable to conclude that various Gentile converts in Corinth were reluctant to purchase any meat sold in the open market because it might have been used in a sacrifice to a false god. Since there was no way for them to know which meats may have been used in pagan worship, they were uncertain of what to do.
The reason for their concern may actually have been prompted by Paul himself when teaching about how the True God views sacrifices to Him. He even alluded to this teaching in his letter. There, he explained that, in God's sacrificial system, the offerings were accepted and symbolically eaten by the Eternal as well as the one who brought the offering (1 Cor. 10:18). In doing so, the person who brought it became a partaker of the altar. For this reason, some may have wondered how this teaching would apply to them if they had inadvertently eaten a pagan sacrifice.
Paul not only addressed their concern, but also offered some keen insight into the heart of the matter. In doing so he explained how the pronouncement at the Jerusalem conference should be applied.
As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) But to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him. (1 Corinthians 8:4-6).
Here, Paul is explaining that the idol to which the meat MAY have been offered is not really a god at all. In truth, it is NOTHING. This is because there is only one TRUE God. Therefore, if these Gentile converts inadvertently ate something that was offered to an idol, no sin would be imputed to them. After all, the idol does not contaminate the meat. The point here is that this issue is not about food, but rather the act of willfully partaking of a pagan sacrifice.
A Grave Misunderstanding
There are some who contend that Paul was teaching that because the idol is worthless, God's people were now free to seek out these sacrifices if they desired. This is totally FALSE. Paul gave absolutely no dispensation for consciously purchasing food consecrated in pagan worship. On the contrary, he forbade it, as did the apostles in Jerusalem. Paul even explained that these sacrifices were actually to devils, and as such, followers of Christ were to have nothing to do with them.
What say I then? that the idol is any thing, or that which is offered in sacrifice to idols is any thing? But I say, that the things which the Gentiles sacrifice, they sacrifice to devils, and not to God: and I would not that ye should have fellowship with devils. Ye cannot drink the cup of the Lord, and the cup of devils: ye cannot be partakers of the Lord's table, and of the table of devils. (1 Corinthians 10:19-21)
Not Causing Offence
Although meat offered to an idol cannot defile God's people, the same cannot be said about proactively seeking it out. To suggest that Paul taught otherwise is a distortion of the Biblical record. In truth, Paul was upholding the teaching of the Church which prohibited such things (Acts 15:28-29, 21:25). However, when exhorting the Corinthians, he also offers another reason for refraining from this practice. It involves how it could be perceived by those who may have doubts.
Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled (1 Corinthians 8:7)
The “knowledge” Paul was speaking about is the understanding that an idol cannot defile the meat because the idol is nothing. Therefore, to UNKNOWINGLY eat meat offered in a pagan sacrifice was not a sin.
However, God’s apostle was also aware that there were some who still felt uncomfortable with making that mistake. Simply put, they didn’t want to take any chances. Because of this, Paul presents a wonderful lesson to those who were strong. At the core of this lesson is Christian charity. Notice what he says.
But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumbling block to them that are weak. For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol's temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; And through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. (1 Corinthians 8:9-12)
Here, Paul is saying that even if you could innocently consume the meat because you are totally unaware if it was used in a sacrifice it would still be wrong to do so if it would offend someone who was weak in the faith. He then punctuates this point by offering a personal example of how he shows consideration toward others.
Wherefore, if meat makes my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world stands, lest I make my brother to offend. (1 Corinthians 8:13)
The point God’s servant was making is that in order to prevent his brother from stumbling, he would not only abstain from eating meat that may have been offered to an idol, he would abstain from eating meat altogether.
A Lesson to God's Ministers Today
With this said, is there a lesson from the example of Paul for God's ministers today? In other words, what would Paul do as a pastor if he knew members of his congregation were offended by him dining out on the Sabbath or holy days—assuming that such a practice was lawful? Would he still do it? Or, out of respect for the "weak," would he abstain? In other words, would Paul bring a meal on holy days and eat it with those who, for conscience sake, will not dine out? Or, would he take his lead from the UCG and go to a local restaurant with brethren and let the "weak" eat by themselves?
Are You Required to Investigate?
We now come to another problem requiring Paul’s attention. What responsibility did Corinthians have in determining whether or not, food was offered to an idol?—since the meat offered to idols was often sold in public markets right along side other meat that was not used in such a way? Paul acknowledges this dilemma and provides the perfect answer. He explains that because the sacrifice could not contaminate the meat, there was nothing wrong with unknowingly eating it. Furthermore, it was not even necessary to ask if it was offered in a pagan sacrifice.
Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question for conscience sake: For the earth is the Lord's, and the fullness thereof. (1 Corinthians 10:25-26)
In essence, Paul is saying that since the meat itself is not affected by the process of offering it to an idol, it may be eaten, provided one DOES NOT consciously seek it out. Furthermore, it isn't even necessary to ask. It is totally irrelevant to the purchase. In other words, your purchase does not require someone to commit idolatry. You could just as well have selected food that was not sacrificed.
What About Dining Out on the Sabbath?
However, this is NOT the case when one dines out on the Sabbath. When God's people engage in this activity they are relying on the fact that God’s law is being VIOLATED. Why?—because it is ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL that someone profane the Sabbath in order for them to enjoy their meal. In other words, in order to dine out on the Sabbath, God's people must actively seek out those who desecrate what God has made HOLY—without that sin they can't eat. Does anyone honestly believe that Paul was teaching that God's people may proactively seek out a pagan altar and partake of its delicacies simply because the false god is nothing but a piece of wood? Sadly, this is exactly what the UCG appears to be asserting.
At this point it is important to understand that contrary to what the UCG claims, Paul's ruling contradicts NOTHING in God' law or the pronouncement of the council at Jerusalem. In other words this act was not “sinful in one context but permissible in another context” as they assert. Paul was NEVER giving permission to seek out idolaters and solicit their sin. As much as these COG ministers want it to be true, in order to justify their own Sabbath dining trespass, it just didn’t happen. What Paul was saying in effect was if you go shopping for food on a Monday and unknowingly selected something that required Sabbath labor, no sin would be imputed to you. However, if you consciously seek out Sabbath labor that is a different case altogether—and according to Paul is forbidden.
Returning to the Argument
The whole point the UCG is attempting to make when invoking Paul's teaching, is that just because they dine out on the Sabbath does not mean they are complicit in the Sabbath labor of the employees serving them, any more than Gentiles living in Paul's time where complicit in idolatrous worship if they inadvertently ate food that was used in a pagan sacrifice. However, this assessment is totally FALSE. What these learned men are advocating and what Paul was teaching are light years apart. In order for their assessment to be correct this is what Paul would have to teach.
Because you enjoy the taste of food offered in sacrifices to Baal, you may now enter his temple and request that they offer a sacrifice for you, because, you know that Baal is a false god and has no power whatsoever, and you don't even believe in him. Furthermore, these pagans would be offering their idolatrous sacrifice for someone else if they didn't do it for you, so it's not like you are making them sin. Therefore, feel free to seek them out and place your order.
Does anyone honestly believe this is what Paul was teaching? We ask this question because it describes exactly what scores of God’s people do when they dine out on the Sabbath. These Christians believe that they can actively seek out, on holy time, sinners who profane the day the God consecrated, and pay them for the fruit of their labor simply because any god the employee might worship isn't real anyway. These Sabbath-diners then argue that they play no part in the unbeliever's trespass even though they are the ones who solicited of the very sin being committed.
What part of this thinking sounds like it came from God's apostle? Our answer: ZERO! Furthermore, when these COG leaders attempt to rehabilitate their sin by associating it with one of God's most faithful servants, they reflect an attitude of desperation. There isn't a hint in Paul's words that remotely suggest this is how he would approach eating meat offered to an idol, let alone dining out on the Sabbath. The bottom line is this. Contrary to what the UCG asserts, Paul never changed anything based on the “circumstances.” In truth, NOTHING changed. God’s people were never to knowingly seek out the ungodly and partake of their sin like the UCG does whenever they dine out on holy time.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer