Make a Donation

Argument XIII

Harvesting Crops

Throughout his argument in defense of dining out on the Sabbath, Mr. George employs a steady stream of human reasoning as well as outright deceit to make his point. Furthermore, he repeatedly uses coded language when presenting his case. In reality, according to Mr. George, things are never quite what they seem to be.

In this particular phase of his case, Mr. George addresses the issue of Jesus’ disciples picking grain on the Sabbath and attempts to refute A Sabbath Test’s representation of this wonderful story. Mind you, his overriding goal is to convince anyone who will listen, that God approves of His people seeking out and engaging in business with those who profane the day He made holy.

Mr. George:

You assert Christ would've sinned if he ate out on the Sabbath. Yet there seem to be at least five passages (two examples, three teachings) which, taken together with the rest of the passages I comment on, show Christ favors balanced, flexible enjoyment of the Sabbath, including enjoying meals of which Sabbath-keepers with a too-negative approach do not approve:

Our Response:

By the words “balanced, flexible enjoyment of the Sabbath,” Mr. George means one that includes going out into spiritual Egypt where God’s holy day is being desecrated by those who worship the god of this world and purchasing this sacrilege. He wouldn’t use these words because he is under the illusion that a restaurant in our modern world isn’t spiritual Egypt. He thinks it’s a nice place where he can "worship."

By the words “Sabbath-keepers with a too-negative approach,” Mr. George means those with a profound respect for the Sabbath. Such people honor this day as God commanded and Jesus Christ gave example. They call the Sabbath a delight. They see the great purpose of this day and rejoice at what it pictures. Mr. George on the other hand, thinks it is up to him to MAKE the Sabbath a delight. What an insult to the God who created and sanctified this day.

Furthermore, despite his claim that Jesus would have engaged in such a practice, there isn’t a shred of evidence in the scriptures to prove it. As the God of the Old Testament, the Messiah commanded his people to refrain from preparing their meals on the Sabbath. Additionally, he commanded His people to not go outside the community of faith on this day.

The fact of the matter is that Mr. George must pervert the gospel record in his attempt to prove that Jesus would do something He would never come close to doing.

Our Response:

In these few paragraphs Mr. George makes no distinction between what Jesus’ disciples did and what he advocates. He then defines what he does as “reverent Sabbath observance.” He does so because it is his behavior he is defending, not because the Bible offers such a definition.

Furthermore, although Mr. George equates the arguments in A Sabbath Test as the equivalent of those advanced by the Pharisees accusing Jesus, this is not true. Here is what A Sabbath Test says.

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. [Oops, that is what Mr. George did, isn’t it?] It simply is not what happened. (A Sabbath Test p. 87)

Mr. George continued:

I've computer-searched the Bible and cannot find a single case where the Bible gives and condemns an example of Sabbath-breaking behavior where it isn't medium-to-heavy work or work for pay by the person who should be keeping the Sabbath, not the circumstances of eating that day. Gathering firewood (Num. 15:32-36). Even trying to gather the missing manna (Ex. 16:27). Carrying heavy burdens (Jer. 17:21-22). Christ rejected the Jewish leaders' attempt to invoke Sabbath law against eating. Nowhere does the bible use eating as an example of Sabbath-breaking, regardless of the cost, effort, or the source of the food.

Our Response:

Notice what Mr. George claims in the last sentence of his comment. According to him one could spend several thousand dollars while taking an entire congregation to a Friday night dinner. Additionally, he contends that God is not concerned with how labor intensive the food preparation is. Finally, he argues that God is not concerned with the source of the meal, in other words where one might have to go to procure it. If he sincerely thinks these items are not addresses in the scriptures, we suggest he get a new computer.

Once again Mr. George resorts to deception and misdirection in his argument. Here he implies that the authors of A Sabbath Test are opposed to eating on the Sabbath. He knows this isn’t true, but he tries to sell it anyway.

With this in mind let us consider what the real issue is with respect to this debate. Let’s begin with what it is not. It is NOT about eating on the Sabbath. There is no prohibition in the scriptures against doing such a thing. God actually made provisions for His people to be nourished on the seventh day (Ex. 16). However, when doing so he instructed them to not do what Mr. George promotes as a form of worship. Their Sabbath meals were to be prepared on the sixth day. Mr. George’s are prepared by slaves to sin (Rom. 6:16) on God’s day. No matter how he tries to dress it up, Mr. George’s Sabbath dining practices are an insult to his Creator.

In the appendix of A Sabbath Test there are a series of modifications of the fourth commandment. These modifications expose what people like Mr. George really believe about God’s holy Sabbath. Below is the entire appendix. It is very telling.

Appendix II

Amending God’s Law

There are those who believe the scriptures can be somewhat misleading with respect to God’s instructions concerning proper Sabbath observance. These “believers” argue that God’s law must be understood in a broader context. Although this is true, it also brings with it considerable risk. For example: many professing Christians manipulate the scriptures in an attempt to accommodate pre-conceived ideas about what God is saying in His word. As a result, man has concocted an endless array of beliefs. Sadly, this practice has even raised its ugly head within God’s church.

Nowhere is this fact more evident than in the church’s understanding of the fourth commandment – specifically the issue of going to restaurants on the Sabbath. Although the Bible clearly prohibits this practice, many of God’s people, including its leaders, believe it is permissible. They justify this practice by employing semantical arguments when applying God’s word in their lives. In essence, they re-write God’s law to accommodate their behavior.

The following are seven examples of how the original command is modified in the minds of many in the church today. These modifications expand the commandment to accommodate the belief that God approves of going to restaurants on His Sabbath. And although those who engage in this practice may not literally desire to change the wording of the command, they most definitely alter its meaning by their behavior and their arguments.

These modifications are intended to illustrate how radical certain beliefs are. This is done by expressing how they would look if God Himself actually stated them. As you read each example ask yourself if the amended command is really what God intended when He gave the fourth commandment.

Example I: A Matter of Personal Labor

Original Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work... (Ex. 20:8-10).

Amended Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work. However, you may compel others to labor on your behalf provided they are not under your direct authority or responsibility.

Surprisingly, there are many in God’s church today who believe the fourth commandment is limited in scope. In other words, although it prohibits His people from engaging in labor, it does not prohibit them from orchestrating the labor of others for their benefit. As a result of this thinking, many contend that when God gave His law regarding the Sabbath, He intentionally made provisions for His people to be the beneficiary of the labor of others, under certain conditions. Furthermore, they contend that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is such a condition.

Although many may write the amended command differently with respect to style, those who go to restaurants on the Sabbath concur with the substance of this modified rendering of God’s law. The question is: do you? Ask yourself: do these words really sound like they express the wisdom of the Holy One of Israel? Was it God’s intent to simply shield His people from profaning the day He set apart? Or was He expressing a greater eternal truth about His Kingdom?

Today, all too many in God’s church advance an endless stream of technical arguments in an attempt to circumvent God’s law. But in the final analysis, God’s word is clear. When He told His people they were not to work on the Sabbath, He was declaring that labor profanes the day He made HOLY! Even God Himself ceased from His labor on this day. Does anyone sincerely believe He would avail Himself of the labor of someone else?

The point God was making when He uttered the fourth commandment was that Israel was not to be a party to profane work in any way, shape, or form on this day unless it specifically related to a Levitical duty (Mt. 12:1-5). Going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is not such a duty. It is a pleasure that God’s law prohibits.

Example II: A Matter of Children

Original Command:

Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shall you labor and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son nor your daughter... (Ex. 20:8-10).

Amended Command:

This amended command is intended to illustrate where semantical arguments can lead. Those who try to affix a very narrow interpretation of God’s commandments do so in order to broaden the path they wish to take. In other words, many conclude: “the Bible only mentions ‘my servants’, ‘my family,’ and ‘my livestock.’ It doesn’t mention those that belong to someone else. Therefore, I can do anything I wish with that which is not mine.”

At this point it, is important to understand that when God gave His Great Moral Code, it was to provide the Israelites with His perfect wisdom as well as His desire for all mankind. One only has to consider what the world will look like when Jesus Christ returns in power and glory to understand this truth. At that time, all will honor His law the way He intends. Where do you think dining out on the Sabbath will fit in that Kingdom?

The point is that God never intended for His people to look for loopholes in His commandments. Ultimately, when He dispenses His judgment, we will understand this truth. At that time, all will know that there are no loopholes.

Example III: The Treatment of Servants

Original Command:

Amended Command:

Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant. However, you may compel someone else’s manservant or maidservant to labor on your behalf, provided they genuinely desire to work and are appropriately compensated for it.

Perhaps the most popular argument advanced in defense of dining out on the Sabbath is that those working in the restaurant are not their servant – and the command only refers to “your servant.” Therefore, the amended command must be in keeping with God’s intent.

However, this thinking fails to understand God’s purpose for commanding the Israelites to free their servants from labor on the Sabbath. That purpose was powerfully conveyed by God when He gave the original command. The Great Law Giver told the Israelites, and He tells His people today, “You were once a servant in the land of Egypt” (Dt. 5:15).

The question God’s people today should ask themselves is: Would God want me to go back into spiritual Egypt and avail myself of the same bondage I was once in? The answer should be obvious.

Example IV: The Treatment of Animals

Original Command:

Amended Command:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor your ass, nor any of your cattle However, you may compel other beasts of burden such as camels, elephants, etc. to labor on your behalf provided they are not treated with cruelty. Furthermore, if you must use an ox or an ass, you may do so provided it does not belong to you. Therefore, you may procure it from an unbeliever in the same way you may procure the services of a manservant or maidservant.

It is doubtful that any true child of God would advance the argument that certain animals could be forced to labor on the Sabbath while other animals are exempt from labor. However, for those who believe it is appropriate to go to restaurants on the Sabbath, this amended command must ring true. After all, why would God extend more mercy to an animal than He would to a person created in His own image?

Example V: The Treatment of Strangers

Original Command:

Amended Command:

“Keep the Sabbath day to sanctify it, as the Lord your God has commanded you. Six days you shall labor, and do all your work: but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your ox, nor you ass, nor any of your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates. However, you may compel the stranger that is outside your gate to labor on your behalf, provided he or she is not forced to labor against his or her will.”

Those who dine out on God’s Sabbath have argued that although the server at a restaurant is an unbeliever (“stranger”), God permits His people to avail themselves of his or her labor because the “stranger” in this case is not under the believer’s authority. In other words, the “stranger” is not “within the gates” of the believer. But is this really true? Does the believer possess no authority over the restaurant employee? This question can be answered with the following illustration: Imagine you are at a restaurant and the service is horrible. The meals are prepared incorrectly and the server in totally unresponsive to you and your guests. When you politely informed him of your concern over the level of service, he responds, “You can’t talk to me like that! I don’t work for you!” Would you honestly agree with his assessment?

The belief that restaurant employees are not under your authority is simply not true. But even if it was, does it make any difference to God? When it comes to the treatment of a “stranger” or brother on the Sabbath, God’s people are not to involve themselves in labor, directly or otherwise.

Perhaps the most important facet of God’s command with respect to the treatment of “strangers” is that God’s people were once “strangers” themselves. However, He delivered them out of the bondage of ignorance and sin into the liberty of His truth. It is a HUGE mistake to think that God would somehow permit His people to return to the world they were delivered from simply to benefit from its sin.

Statement VI: Buying and Selling

Original Command

And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we should not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day... (Neh. 10:31)

Amended Command

And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the Sabbath day to sell, that we should not buy it of them on the Sabbath, or on the holy day. In other words, you are not to spend the entire day purchasing food or other necessities. However, you may spend abbreviated portions of the Sabbath to purchase provisions for you or your family as long as you remember to attend services and be with My people.

Some leaders in God’s church today contend that Nehemiah’s indictment of buying and selling on the Sabbath was limited to the scope of purchases being made. According to their reasoning, the Jews in Jerusalem were going into the open market for the entire day and purchasing provisions for their homes. These provisions would last for several days and even longer in many cases. This would be tantamount to buying several hundred dollars worth of groceries today as well as performing other errands. As a result, the entire day was spent in activities totally unrelated to the Sabbath. The assumption here is that it is acceptable with God if only an hour or two are spent in activities totally unrelated to the Sabbath.

These leaders argue that Nehemiah would never have addressed this issue if God’s people invested a more abbreviated period of time doing family errands or some other activity. Furthermore, they contend that sharing a meal with brethren at a restaurant does not distract God’s people from the Sabbath, it actually keeps them connected to this day.

However, this reasoning represents a massive leap in logic. Nowhere does Nehemiah mention the length of this activity (buying and selling) as an issue, but rather the activity itself. Notice that Nehemiah was not attempting to restrict this practice, he was attempting to eliminate it altogether. It is true that God’s people may have spent the entire day purchasing goods and services, but that ignores a bigger question: why were they there at all? Nehemiah’s remedy was designed to address the latter.

The big question God’s people should ask themselves is this: 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)?

Argument XIV

The Christmas Defense