Argument II
Strict Obedience is Pharisaical
When defending the practice of dining out on the Sabbath, the UCG implies that those who condemn this behavior are similar to the Pharisees of Jesus' day. They then point out that the Pharisees tediously legislated the Sabbath by crafting endless regulations concerning how it should be observed, including not buying and selling. After setting up this premise, they suggest that just as the Messiah took issue with the Pharisees of His day, He would also reject the belief that going to restaurants on the Sabbath is a sin in our time.
The UCG begins this phase of their case by explaining how the Pharisees dominated religious life during the first century. Actually, they provide a very informative picture of these religious leaders. However, as you read their argument, remember what they are advocating. These COG leaders contend that the Bible is silent on the issue of God's people seeking out unbelievers who profane the Sabbath and paying them for the fruit of their sacrilege, which is exactly what takes place when one dines out on the Sabbath. Everything the UCG presents is done with that objective in mind. After all, their doctrinal paper is called "Dining Out on the Sabbath." Their intent is clearly to persuade God's people that the Lord of the Sabbath accepts this practice. The question for you to ask is:"Have they proven anything?" Notice that even the UCG acknowledges that during the time of Christ all forms of buying and selling were forbidden. Here are their words, followed by our response.
Watch how this major COG group makes their point by ignoring the obvious. However, before you do, consider the following sign posted on a prominent outdoor mall in the Great Northwest. Within that mall are four restaurants—two of which would be considered ‘high end.” Notice that the world has no difficulty understanding that consumers are conducting BUSINESS. However, the United Church of God argues otherwise for obvious reasons.
United Church of God:
In addition to the biblical account of Sabbath keeping, in the Jewish community there exists the oral law, to be interpreted by the Sanhedrin. Of course the Sanhedrin disappeared over 1,700 years ago, but its influence is still felt today. The oral law (now written in the Talmud) contains 39 categories of forbidden work on the Sabbath. Some of these are specified in the Bible, but not all, yet they were enforced by the Sanhedrin during the time of Christ. As in all matters, we must be careful to separate biblical fact from tradition. In his book Sabbath—Day of Eternity Rabbi Aryeh Kaplan writes this about commerce on the Sabbath:
The Sanhedrin legislated a prohibition against all forms of buying, selling, trading and other commerce for a variety of reasons. The Sabbath must be a day when all business stops. 1 Kaplan, Rabbi Aryeh, Sabbath—Day of Eternity (Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations of America: New York, New York) 2002.
This was legislated in the oral law which developed over many years, but much of the development occurred in the period of time between the two testaments (400 B.C. to A.D. 100). When the Old Testament ends there is no Sanhedrin, but when the New Testament begins it is a thriving institution. The Sanhedrin wielded much power during this time when it came to Sabbath observance. The prohibition against carrying (one of the 39 categories of work) was used by the Sanhedrin to deny any sort of commerce.
This category absolutely forbids all carrying in the street. Even such trivial things as a key or a handkerchief must be left at home. Certainly pocketbooks, purses, wallets and keychains may not be carried. The only things one may carry outdoors are things that are actually worn.
The power of the Sanhedrin was uncontested. They were the authors and final arbiters of Jewish law. During the time of the Roman persecutions, it became very difficult to maintain the academies where the Oral Torah was taught, and it was feared that it would be forgotten and lost. Because of this, it was finally put into writing some 1700 years ago to form what we call the Talmud.
The Talmud itself says that the laws of the Sabbath are only alluded to by a hairsbreadth in the Written Torah, but rise like mountains in the Oral Law. This body [the Sanhedrin] had a twofold authority. First of all, it was the keeper of the Oral Torah, and was charged with its interpretation. As such, it functioned as the supreme court of Jewish law. Secondly, it had the authority to legislate religious law. Since this authority was derived from the Torah itself, it was as binding as Biblical law. Once legislation was passed, it could only be repealed by the Sanhedrin itself. Such legislation was most often aimed at maintaining the spirit, as well as the letter, of the law.
A prime rule given to the Sanhedrin was to “make a fence around the Torah.” Jesus Christ did not support the many rules and regulations developed by the Sanhedrin to legislate Sabbath observance. He denounced many of these traditions (Mark 7:9, 13). This should give us reason to pause when it comes to Jewish rules and regulations concerning Sabbath observance.
Our Response:
Here the UCG attempts to link genuine obedience to God with the self-righteous hypocrisy of Jesus' greatest antagonists. In essence, they imply guilt by association. It is interesting that this is exactly the same approach employed by the Protestant world when attempting to rebut many of the beliefs the UCG holds to be true. After all, the Pharisees kept those Old Testament feasts, they didn't eat unclean meats, they tithed, and they wouldn't work on the Sabbath. Protestants then conclude that because Jesus issued a scathing indictment against them, He must have disapproved of everything they did. It is doubtful that the UCG would "buy" this argument. However, they have no problem "selling" it when it suits their purpose.
What this COG fails to understand is that those who reject the practice of dining out on the Sabbath are not taking their lead from the Pharisees, but rather from God Himself. It was He who specifically forbade His people from acquiring their daily meals on the Sabbath, preparing their meals on the Sabbath, and from going outside their community of faith to obtain their meals on the Sabbath (See Ex. 16). Furthermore, God was so emphatic when giving these instructions that He actually said that failure to comply was proof that His people rejected Him and His law (verse 4). Today this is exactly what the UCG position advocates. We realize this is not their intent, but what they are teaching directly contradicts the enduring moral principle of God's command to His people after leading them out of bondage. The point here is that this issue is not about "Jewish rules and regulations," it is about obeying God and honoring His word.
Additionally, the UCG fails to acknowledge that what takes place in a restaurant every Sabbath is an act of sacrilege and desecrates the very day God made holy at the beginning. Remember, the activity they are advocating requires God's people to:
1) go back into spiritual Egypt (Re. 18:4),
2) seek out slaves to sin (Ro. 6:16) and their slave master (2 Cor. 4:4)
3) pay these slaves for the fruit of their sin (Neh. 10:31).
Despite this fact, the UCG implies that those who think such a practice is wrong are just like the Pharisees. Notice their warning at the conclusion of this point. They assert that the prohibition against buying and selling on the Sabbath is a "Jewish regulation." Never mind that it was God's servant Nehemiah who commanded His people to cease from buying ANYTHING (including food) that was sold on the Sabbath or holy day (Neh. 10:31).
A Final Thought
The argument that God will somehow give His people a “free pass” to dine out on the day He made holy reflects the height of arrogance. In a very real sense, it is pharisaical. It makes the law of God of none effect and reflects a total disregard for His word.
God’s instructions are firm. His law is absolute. His word does not require man’s “spin,” it requires man’s obedience. Going outside your spiritual camp to acquire your meals and have them prepared for you on the Sabbath is a practice that God specifically condemns. He even identified it as a test to prove His people's loyalty to Him. The self-righteous will ignore that test. Those who tremble at His word will heed it.
Which best describes you?
Counter Argument
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Blow the Trumpet states, "The point here is that this issue is not about 'Jewish rules and regulations;' it is about obeying God and honoring His word." Mark 2:25 speaks of David "...when he had need, and was hungry.." There is a difference in "having need, being hungry" and "mere convenience."
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
What happened to David when he ate the shewbread occurred once in his life and here the UCG employs it to justify an on-going practice. I'm just curious, but what if David took the same approach? What if he concluded that because God permitted him to eat the shewbread once, he may now avail himself of it on a regular basis? Does anyone honestly believe God would consent to such a thing?
Additionally, although Jesus specifically stated that David was guiltless when he ate the shewbread, He also stated that the act itself was "unlawful" (Mt. 12: 4), and that it was only David's unique circumstance that exonerated him. This being the case, is the UCG prepared to concede that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is also unlawful? Our guess is NO.
Furthermore, while these Church leaders defend their SIN as a "need" driven by "being hungry" and not something driven by convenience, this is not true. It is the official position of the United Church of God that if one wishes to make Friday night dinner reservations for himself and his family, two weeks in advance, it would be perfectly acceptable. If you doubt this, ask them. My question is: where is the need? Where is the hunger? Furthermore, what if David advised Ahimelech the priest that he and his men would be in the neighborhood in a few days and was wondering if they could drop by and have some more shewbread? What do you think God's answer would be?
The UCG may attempt to hide behind exceptions to defend their on-going sin, but they do not have God's word in their corner. They must rely on twisting the truth to advance their own lawlessness.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
We would consider [your] approach as legalism, similar to the mind-set of the religious leaders in Christ's time, whose constant refrain was what was "lawful." This stands out in stark contrast to how Jesus kept the Sabbath with love and mercy as the foundation of His motivation. This is why he told them, "But if you had known what this means, 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' you would not have condemned the guiltless" (Matthew 12:7).
The context of this statement is significant to the subject of eating out on the Sabbath, because that is EXACTLY what He and His disciples were doing. Their alleged sin was not buying food but picking grain to eat, which the legalistic religious leaders considered to be harvesting. They could not see the difference between harvesting and the simple act of procuring food to eat for one meal on the Sabbath. Similarly, neither can you see the difference between treating the Sabbath as a shopping day and simply purchasing a meal in a restaurant on the Sabbath, That also strikes us as a legalistic mind-set, not unlike that of the religious leaders that condemned Christ.
It is significant that most of the examples of Jesus' conduct on the Sabbath recorded in the New Testament are exceptions to the ideal norm of Sabbath-keeping. We believe that this should be instructive to us as we seek to meet the challenges of keeping the Sabbath in our contemporary culture.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Once again the United Church of God attempts to blur the lines between two hugely different acts, only this time they do so by perverting the words of Jesus Christ Himself. Here, they argue that what the disciples did when they picked grain on the Sabbath is "EXACTLY" the same thing they do when eating out in a restaurant on that day. But is this true? Consider the obvious differences: First, noticeably absent from this act was any attempt by Jesus or His disciples to buy the grain. Furthermore, at no time did they try to hire others to pick it for them and prepare it. Additionally, no one was commissioned to serve the grain to them or to clean up after the meal. Despite these glaring differences the UCG declares what the disciples did and what they (the UCG) do, a perfect match.
However, if they want to cling to this idea, I have a suggestion for them. I propose that the UCG doctrinal group invite their wives to "dine out" with them. However, instead of taking them to a restaurant, they take them to a grain field or an orchard to pick a piece of fruit. Do you believe their wives would have the same difficulty telling the difference between this activity and going to a restaurant as they do? I seriously doubt it. When it comes to the UCG and "eating out" on the Sabbath, what they advocate is light years from what the disciples did. Furthermore, Jesus' teaching concerning what was done by His disciples actually contradicts the UCG position on this issue. Consider what really took place and what Jesus taught.
Picking Grain on the Sabbath
When citing the story of Jesus disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, the UCG suggests that what the disciples did may have offended the Pharisees but it did not go contrary to God’s law. In other words, what the disciples did was lawful. However, this understanding couldn't be more incorrect. To illustrate this point consider the following.
How Hungry were the Disciples?
The actual story of David and the shewbread provides some very keen insight into what may have been taking place when Jesus defended His disciples against the accusation leveled by the Pharisees. It most assuredly makes a powerful statement regarding dining out on the Sabbath. Consider the following.
When David ate the showbread he didn’t simply take it and start eating. He first approached the priest and asked for permission to do so—and he had a very good reason for asking. The scriptures tell us that at that time David was being pursued by King Saul who wanted to kill him. His flight required him and his men to hide out in order to avoid capture and certain execution. In all likelihood, their escape was so swift they didn’t have time to take provisions with them. Some commentaries suggest that they may have gone 3 days without food when David finally sought out the priest for help. Jamison, Fausset and Brown’s commentary describes David’s plight as “an emergency.” They would go on to write:
“David and his attendants seem to have been lurking in some of the adjoining caves, to elude pursuit, and to have been, consequently, reduced to great extremities of hunger.”
In short, they were famished. This was not a simple case of the “munchies.” Nor were they looking for a nice place to fellowship. Their need was REAL. And their situation was desperate.
However, even then David sought the permission of the priest before taking the showbread. And although his need was truly GREAT, Ahimelech the priest still inquired of God as to whether he could give David the food. The scriptures tell us that God showed mercy to David and consented. JFB put it this way.
“A dispensation to use the hallowed bread was specially granted by God Himself.”
This now bring us to an important question. Why would Jesus invoke the story of David at this time if it didn’t parallel, to some degree, what was taking place with the disciples? After all, if the need of the disciples wasn't comparable to that of David and his men the analogy wouldn't work. In other words if what the disciples did was simply a part of a normal Sabbath day then their reason for plucking the grain would have been driven by convenience while David's reason was driven by desperation. It is interesting that the word used to describe the disciples hunger (Mt. 12:1) was the same used to describe the hunger experienced by David (v. 3). It was also the same word used to describe the Messiah's condition when he fasted for forty days and forty nights in the wilderness (Mt. 4:2).
Based on Jesus' invocation of the story of David and the shewbread, it is reasonable to conclude that what the disciples were experiencing was truly unique. This was not a typical Sabbath in which these men were simply acquiring a normal meal. These men were genuinely hungry, perhaps even famished. You don’t know why, but like David they must have had a very good reason for having not eaten. As a result they inquired of the Messiah to see if they could gather a small amount of grain to eat. Jesus consented.
The story suggests that Jesus was making two points by using David’s example when defending His men. The first was that the Pharisees were quick to judge the disciples without knowing all the facts. By invoking the story of David Jesus put the situation in perspective. In other words, there was more here than meets the eye.
The second point Jesus was making is truly extraordinary. He was telling the Pharisees that the same God who gave David permission to eat the shewbread gave the disciples permission to eat the grain.
Jesus was that God.
This is why He said, “For the Son of man is Lord even of the Sabbath day”
The bottom line is this. God's judgment of David as well as His judgment of the apostles was based on a unique circumstance at a unique time. For the United Church of God to hold this example as proof that God’s people may now make plans to pay Sabbath-breakers to prepare their meals on holy time and also be held guiltless is disgraceful. In a very real sense such a belief turns the grace of God into license. In other words, it rejects the true meaning of the words "I desire mercy and not sacrifice," and represents them to mean "If you can acquire your Sabbath food once, because of a genuine need, then I can do it on occasion because of the pleasure I derive from it.”
It is interesting that in a recent sermon defending Dining out a long standing UCG pastor actually referred to this practice as a “treat.” Here is my question.
Do you think that is why David ate the shewbread?
Or, why the disciples picked grain?
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16, 2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
On Page 11 of the Blow the Trumpet paper it states:
"What the UCG fails to understand when advancing its particular point is that those who reject the practice of dining out on the Sabbath are not taking their lead from the Pharisees, but rather from God Almighty. It was He who specifically forbade His people from acquiring their daily meals on the Sabbath, preparing their meals on the Sabbath, and from going outside their community of faith to obtain their meals on the Sabbath (See Ex. 16). Furthermore, God was so emphatic when giving these instructions that He actually said that failure to comply was proof that His people rejected Him and His law (verse 4)"
While one might conclude general principles of Sabbath-keeping from Exodus 16, we do not consider every specific instruction to the Israelites as binding upon us today. This was clearly a unique incident that has never been duplicated before or since. As you stated, God miraculously provided manna with explicit instructions as a test of obedience. The instruction to gather twice as much on the sixth day and none on the seventh can certainly teach the principle of doing preparatory work on the sixth day in order to avoid unnecessary work on the Sabbath. However, to conclude that God's instructions to the Israelites on this unique occasion represent an explicit command to all generations of God's people not to procure or prepare food on the Sabbath is an unprovable extrapolation.
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.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
What the UCG asserts in this section of their letter shows utter contempt for God as a provider. The fact that He no longer rains down manna does not mean He no longer provides the very food we eat. In essence what these men are 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. 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 the Sabbath is so clear that only the defiant would conclude otherwise. Furthermore, when the United Church of God refers to Blow the Trumpet's conclusion concerning Exodus 16 as "an unprovable extrapolation," they are relying on a patent rejection of the obvious. I encourage everyone to read this chapter to their children and ask them how it can be applied today.
The idea that any minister of Jesus Christ can promote the argument of "No manna, no deal" as proof that they no longer have to obey God Almighty is inconceivable to me, but that is precisely what the UCG is saying.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
P.S. Where in scripture does it say that when the manna ceased, the Israelites were free to gather food on the Sabbath, as you claim?
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
Every single detail in a given account does not always set a permanent precedent for festival observance. We must consider everything for the situation under consideration. Consider the long-term ramifications of Exodus 12:16:
"On the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and on the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation for you. No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat that only may be prepared by you."
God did not instruct them to prepare their food the day before these annual Sabbaths, e.g. "for that Sabbath was a high day" (John 19:31). What happened when Passover (or another festival) occurred on the Sabbath? Did they prepare the Passover lamb on the day before, the 13th of Nisan, or skip preparing it altogether? Even the Jewish Talmud, despite its extremes, allowed for food preparation on annual Sabbaths. The Church believes that an over-Sabbath likely occurred in Joshua 5:10, "Now the children of Israel...kept the Passover on the fourteenth day of the month at twilight." This meal would have been prepared on the Sabbath, two days before the manna ceased (verse 12).
The food preparation in Exodus 12 was limited to "that which everyone must eat," i.e., for that day. Likewise, those who eat in restaurants are just eating for the benefit of that day. They are not (grocery) shopping on the Sabbath, which is the context of Nehemiah's prohibitions. Sabbath-keeping is obviously permanent, yet the same cannot be said about every detail of Exodus 16.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Once again the United Church of God's doctrinal group attempts to blur the lines between a practice the scriptures permit and the SIN they commit. This time it centers around meal preparation on high days. According to the UCG, because God permits meals to be prepared on the annual holy days, He must also approve of His people seeking out unbelievers to prepare them. Furthermore, they contend that if the Almighty allows food to be prepared on His annual Sabbaths, He must also approve of it being done on His weekly Sabbath.
They present this phase of their argument using some of the best slight-of-hand in this debate. However, in the interest of fairness let's examine what God is really saying about labor on His Sabbath and holy days. First, notice His exact words with respect to His high days. Here is what he says regarding the Days of Unleavened Bread.
And in the first day there shall be a holy convocation, and in the seventh day there shall be a holy convocation to you; no manner of work shall be done in them, save that which every man must eat, that only may be done of you. (Ex. 12:16)
Here, God is not telling His people that others may be hired to prepare their food on His high days, He is telling them that they may prepare their own food. Notice that He says these meals may "only be prepared by YOU." However, when it came to the weekly Sabbath food preparation was strictly forbidden (Ex. 16:23). This truth is also born out when God explains the timing as well as certain rules pertaining to His Holy convocations—including the Sabbath.
Regarding Servile Work
In Leviticus 23 the Almighty identifies His Sabbath and all seven of His annual assemblies. When doing so His prohibition against work on the weekly Sabbath and the Day of Atonement are unique. In each case God prohibits ALL WORK. On the remaining holy days He says no "servile work" may be done. But why make this distinction? God did so because on the remaining holy days He did permit His people to prepare their own meals—“that only may be done of you.” The scriptures don’t say why God made this provision, but it is reasonable to conclude that the Almighty anticipated that his annual festivals would require great family pilgrimages involving significant travel. However, even though this was the case, He made no such provision for the weekly Sabbath. The steadfast on that day was NO WORK (Ex. 20:10, 31:15-16, Lev. 23:3).
What is most disappointing about this particular UCG argument is that these church leaders know full well that the Almighty makes a very clear distinction between labor on the weekly Sabbath and labor on the annual holy days. Sadly, they turn a blind eye to this fact because they would rather indulge their own appetite than to honestly represent God’s word and correct His children. In essence, these ministers are trying to persuade you to believe that God not only permits His people to prepare their own meals on the Sabbath, which is totally false, but that they can even seek out Sabbath-breakers and pay them to prepare those meals for them. Do you really believe this is what God intended the 4th commandment to say?
Brethren, the idea that the Creator of heaven and earth somehow permits food to be prepared by anybody on the weekly Sabbath is flat out wrong on so many levels.
Brethren, if God wanted to limit His prohibition against work on the weekly Sabbath to “servile work,” as He did with His holy days, you can bet that He would have said so. It’s not as if He didn’t know how to say “servile.” But He said no such thing. And the scriptures bear this out.
The bottom line is this. The UCG and its leadership may claim that God’s winks at what takes place in restaurants every Sabbath all they want, but they do not have the force of scripture on their side. In truth, you may read the Bible from page 1 to the back cover and not find a single example of any work, servile or otherwise, on the weekly Sabbath referred to as anything but UNLAWFUL.
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer
Counter Argument continued
United Church of God
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
April 16,2007
Dear Mr. Fischer,
The command "let no man go out of his place" (Exodus 16:29) must also be understood in the proper context. The Blow the Trumpet paper above interprets this qualifier as not "going outside of their community of faith." Your interpretation of the command not to "go out of his place" on the Sabbath as going outside your spiritual camp to acquire your meals and have them prepared for you on the Sabbath is a practice that God specifically forbade-represents a gigantic leap of logic that is unproven and unprovable.
But in Exodus 16 the entire camp of over 2 million Israelites was their "community of faith." Yet those who went out for food in Exodus 16 were still within the camp of Israel. Therefore they probably were to remain in their individual tents or dwelling places on the Sabbath. Either way, we do not consider that this instruction applies to us today. If we followed this literally, we could not even go to Church. The original instructions certainly did not mean their "spiritual camp." Nor can we prove that it means that today.
The paper's "community of faith"" interpretation is evidently due to the command for the holy convocation, as explained on page 40. This sounds like human reasoning in order to somehow keep everyone in "his place" on the Sabbath. But the command for the "holy convocation" was not given until Leviticus 23, about a year after Exodus 16. Therefore, it's plausible to conclude that they could not go out of their dwelling places in Exodus 16 but were permitted to do so later.
Similarly, on Passover it says, "And none of you shall go out of the door of his house until morning" (Exodus 12:22). Yet Jesus Christ and the disciples went out during the night of Passover to the garden of Gethsemane where Jesus was arrested.
Note from Blow the Trumpet
Exodus 12 :22 pertained to the night the death angel would kill all the firstborn of those who were not under the blood of the lamb. There is nothing to suggest that this was an ongoing command as the UCG implies.
UCG Continued
The Blow the Trumpet paper also notes that Jesus dined "at the homes of others on the Sabbath." However, not only was Jesus here outside of His place, He ate with those who were not part of the community of believers, ie. "lawyers and Pharisees" (Luke 14:3). Likewise, we do not believe that it's a sin to eat with fellow believers in a restaurant while surrounded by unbelievers. We also do not believe that eating an occasional meal in a restaurant on the Sabbath constitutes going back "into the world" or "spiritual Egypt" as you suggest.
Sincerely,
Advisory Committee for Doctrine
Response from Dennis Fischer
Dear Friends,
Once again, in an effort to justify their defiance of God's Sabbath law, the UCG attempts to blur the lines between two behaviors that are vastly different. This time they liken the scribes and Pharisees Jesus ate with on the Sabbath to restaurant personnel or other patrons. After all, according to these COG leaders, both are outside the community of faith. Never mind that Jesus Himself said the Pharisees sit in Moses' seat (Mt. 23:2). I'm just curious, do you think he would say that about a waiter at a restaurant?
Now for Some Honesty
The religious leaders the Messiah ate with on the Sabbath were a part of synagogue life. To suggest that He saw them as something other than that is a stretch, even for the United Church of God. What Jesus did was tantamount to me dining at the home of the UCG doctrinal group on the Sabbath.
It is interesting that in this phase of their argument, these ministers also attempt to prove that Jesus behaved in a way that went contrary to God's law as recorded in Exodus 16—by going outside his place on the Sabbath. They then reason that if Jesus can go contrary to the law, so can they.
However, we at Blow the Trumpet believe that if Jesus went contrary to the law, as the UCG suggests, then we would have no Savior. Fortunately, that didn’t happen. In truth, Jesus' behavior illustrates what God's word really means by "your place." "Your place" means "where you belong." The point here is that God did not want the Israelites to go out to gather their food on the Sabbath. That was not their place. Assembling on the Sabbath and Holy days was their place. Sharing a meal with their neighbor was their place. This was true in the time of Moses, it was true in Jesus' day, and it is still true today As much as the UCG wants to show Jesus' behavior as at odds with Exodus 16, we see it as TOTALLY compatible. Even the Pharisees never challenged Him on this.
The bottom line is this. Jesus was well within "His place" when he dined at the homes of the religious leaders of His day. However, when the UCG seeks out Sabbath-breakers and pays them to prepare their meals on holy time, they are not! These two behaviors are not remotely similar with respect to God's Sabbath law.
Additionally, it is predictable that the UCG would not believe that the restaurant they patronize on the Sabbath is a part of the "world" or "spiritual Egypt." This is because to do so would expose their behavior for what it really is—the solicitation of SIN. With that said, I have a question for them:
Where do you believe God thinks they are?
Respectfully,
Dennis Fischer