Excuse VIII
I'm Not Responsible
Question:
How can God’s people be complicit in the labor they receive from restaurant personnel when their servers would be working for someone else if we weren’t there?
~~~
In an ongoing effort to justify the practice of dining out on the Sabbath, one of the church’s most prominent figures advanced a very interesting argument. He claims that he is no more complicit in the sin of restaurant personnel who labor for him on the Sabbath than God was complicit in the "sin" of gentiles eating unfit food He permitted the Israelites to sell them. This long time minister supports his claim by implying that there is no moral distinction between these two behaviors. Therefore, if God can be a party to one, then His people today may be a party to the other. But is his understanding correct? Remember, although God permitted His people to sell meat that had been compromised to Gentiles, He absolutely prohibited them from acquiring or preparing their Sabbath meals on the seventh day. Additionally, although God permitted gentiles ("strangers") to eat food that was compromised, He absolutely prohibited these same gentiles from working on His Sabbath (Ex. 20:10, Deut. 5:14).
A Real Eye Opener
We encourage you to read what follows very carefully. It's a real EYE-OPENER. As you do, never lose sight of this leader’s goal. He wants you to believe that the Lord of the Sabbath approves of His people seeking out unbelievers on holy time and paying them for their goods and services, including their work. Here is how he makes his point.
If dining out on the Sabbath causes employees to sin, then we must conclude that God contributed to the sin of foreigners when He decreed that animals that die of themselves should be given or even sold to “strangers” among the Israelites! (Deut. 14:21)
Rationalizing Sin
Consider this minister’s stream of logic. According to him, because an Israelite was permitted to sell a gentile food which was unfit for them (Israelites) to eat, God would somehow permit these same Israelites to go outside their camp on the Sabbath and purchase a meal from unbelievers, just as this COG leader does. Does anybody really believe this? Here is a clue: Once again, consider what God specifically commanded these very same Israelites to do regarding their Sabbath meals.
You shall not acquire food on the Sabbath.
God actually rebuked the Israelites when they attempted to engage in this practice. His exact words were: “How long refuse you to keep my commandments and my laws?” (Ex. 16:26-28). He uttered them after the Israelites went out to gather food (manna) on the Sabbath.
You shall not prepare food on the Sabbath.
God specifically instructed the Israelites to do their meal preparation on the sixth day (Ex. 16:23). Furthermore, at no time did He suggest that they could commission others to prepare it for them on the Sabbath. He actually indicated that the preparation day was given to “prove” the Israelites and test their obedience (Ex. 16:4).
You shall not go outside your place on the Sabbath.
God revealed this specific aspect of His command because the Israelites went outside the camp to obtain food on the Sabbath (Ex. 16:29). Furthermore, God was furious with this practice and He made that fact abundantly clear.
This COG leader may see Deuteronomy 14:21 as proof that God would have permitted His people to dine out on His Sabbath, but Exodus 16 and a host of other scriptures clearly contradict his conclusion. With that said, some may wonder why God would permit the children of Israel to sell unbelievers meat that died in such a way as to make it unfit for His people to consume.
The REAL TRUTH about Deuteronomy 14:21
At this point, it is important to understand that God was NOT instructing His people to sell gentiles unclean animals (i.e. swine, cats, dogs etc) as food. The animals He permitted them to sell were clean. However, because of the nature of their death, God declared them unfit for His people, but not unfit for others. The question for us to consider is: WHY? Why does God state that Israelites are not to eat an animal that dies of itself while those who are not of God’s faith may eat it if they wish? In order to understand what the Eternal was conveying, let's look at His exact words.
Ye shall not eat of any thing that dieth of itself: thou shalt give it unto the stranger that is in thy gates, that he may eat it; or thou mayest sell it unto an alien: for thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God. Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother's milk (Deuteronomy 14:21).
Notice that although an animal that died of itself was not to be consumed by God's people, it could be consumed by unbelievers—even unbelievers within the camp where God's law was in force (the "stranger that is within your gates"). This now brings us to a great misunderstanding.
Although this Church leader asserts that for a gentile to eat food that had been compromised was a sin, this is NOT TRUE . Actually, it was not a sin at all for them. That's right! Those "strangers" will never be judged for this, in this life or the next. If it was a sin for them to eat such things, then God would have been complicit in it. However, that is clearly NOT how He works (Jas. 1:13).
Here Is the Point
With this said, what did the Eternal mean when giving His instructions in Deuteronomy 14:21? What was His intent and motivation behind this directive? The answer is actually found in the verse itself. The issue is HOLINESS. In truth, God was speaking about how His people are to behave because they belong to Him.
Clearly, the relationship between God and His people is unique. However, the same cannot be said about the relationship between God and unbelievers. The point here is that God was not making a distinction between sin and righteousness, but rather a distinction between those who are His people and those who are not. Now here is the striking lesson God is teaching.
The True God is Different;
You be Different, Too
Throughout the scriptures it is abundantly clear that the True God is not like other deities. He is HOLY. He is divinely pure—the epitome of dignity and majesty. He would never think of eating food that dies of itself or even that which has been cooked on a stove in which an unclean animal had once died (Lev. 11:35). The Great Creator and Sustainer of the Universe is so connected to moral purity and dignity that He would never boil a calf in its mother’s milk or eat garbage out of a trash can.
When God gave these instructions, He was exhorting the children of Israel to appreciate their unique relationship with Him. In short, the Holy One of Israel was telling His people that they are to be holy as well. They are to be different from others. They are to be cleaner, more hygienic, more dignified, more modest and proper. They are not to dress in a way that is unseemly, nor behave in a way that lacks self-respect. They are not to mutilate their bodies with excessive piercings nor deface it with paintings. Their pagan neighbors may choose to behave in such a way, but God's people are to be different. Why? Because He is different.
A Lesson for God's People Today
In a similar manner today, Christians are God’s children as well. As such, they should not eat food that has been tainted by being dropped on the floor, thrown in the trash, or that which has been set out too long before being cooked. This enduring moral principle is brought out at the beginning of this chapter.
Ye are the children of the LORD your God: ye shall not cut yourselves, nor make any baldness between your eyes for the dead. For thou art an holy people unto the LORD thy God, and the LORD hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself, above all the nations that are upon the earth. Thou shalt not eat any abominable thing (Deuteronomy 14:1-3).
If God’s people, including His leaders, sincerely desire to be like Him, they would never seek out "strangers" and pay them to labor on holy time. Instead, they would seek to be holy—different from those in the world—not go back into the world and partake of its sin. In other words, they should not do what the unconverted allow themselves to do.
The bottom line is this. Everything about us and our way of life should reflect the dignity of our calling. In essence, God is saying: "If unbelievers want to eat garbage or food that is unseemly, let them do it. However, My people must be different because I am different."
Complicit in Sin
This long standing minister then argues that unbelievers who profane the Sabbath are held to a lower standard prior to their conversion. After all, judgment is now on the house of God, not on those who aren't called at this time. Therefore, because of this, the Eternal must also view His people's purchase of an unbeliever's Sabbath trespasses differently as well. In essence, this man is suggesting that God sees dining out on the Sabbath as: "no harm, no foul." Here is how he expresses this view.
Today, God is working with spiritual Israel; His judgment begins with His Church (I Pet 4:17; Eph 2:19). Colossians 2:16-17 and Ephesians 1: 22-23 show that God’s government within His Church has authority in how those within the Body of Christ keep the Sabbath and Holy Days. However, that authority does not extend to people in the world, those whom God is not yet calling.
Here, this leader is making two points. First, he claims that the ministry is responsible for determining how God's people keep the Sabbath. Therefore, because he is a minister, he is making an administrative judgment that permits God's people to purchase the goods and services of unbelievers on holy time. But does this man have authority to legislate disobedience? The short answer is NO! Furthermore, the idea that he can mandate Sabbath behavior that flies in the face of scripture is a teaching of the Church of Rome, not the Church of God. Here is how the Mother of Harlots expresses it.
Sunday is our mark of authority. The church is above the Bible, and this transference of Sabbath observance is proof of that fact. (The Catholic Record, Sept. 1, 1923)
When this or any other COG leader, claims to have the authority to teach that God's people may go back into spiritual Egypt and purchase the Sabbath labor of unbelievers, he is placing himself above the Bible. He may deny this fact, but scriptures say otherwise.
"Don't Blame Me"
The second point this prominent COG leader makes is that because he does not have authority over unbelievers, he bears no responsibility for their behavior—even the behavior he specifically solicits and directs. Therefore, he teaches that because God's leaders can't shut down businesses on the Sabbath, they may now seek out these Sabbath-breaking services and teach others to do so as well. This is human reasoning run amok. Furthermore, it is totally antithetical to everything the True God stands for. With that said, we have some questions for all who agree with his assertion that he is not complicit in the sin of restaurant personnel who profane the Sabbath on his behalf. We will present them using three hypothetical scenarios. Here they are.
Scenario I
"The Assassin"
Imagine this COG leader wanted someone killed. However, he knows that God's law prohibits murder, so he decides to enlist the services of a professional "hit man." This seems like the perfect solution. By doing this, he would not have to commit the act himself.
After soliciting the assassin's service and negotiating the terms (location, method, as well as price and how it is to be paid), this minister waits for the "dirty deed" to be done. While waiting, he reasons that he has done nothing wrong. After all, the assassin is unconverted and is totally ignorant of God's law. Therefore, God holds him to a lower standard. Additionally, the assassin is a highly skilled professional. If he doesn't kill for this minister, he will kill for someone else. That's what he does. He is a killer. It isn't as if one can prevent him from this line of work.
The Confession
After the "hit" is carried out, the assassin is unexpectedly caught and confesses to everything, revealing all the details. This leads the authorities to serve an arrest warrant on this long standing minister. Here is our question:
Does God Almighty consider this COG
leader complicit in this murder?
We realize that many might consider our hypothetical as outrageous and grossly offensive. But is it? Consider how closely the facts of our "murder for hire" scenario resemble a "Sabbath food preparation for hire" behavior.
Both acts require God's law to be violated. Murder violates the sixth commandment. Labor on the Sabbath violates the 4th.
Both acts (murder and Sabbath labor) are identified as capital crimes in the scriptures. The penalty for both is DEATH.
Both acts involve people who don't have a clue regarding the True God. At least we hope that's the case.
Both acts require skilled labor to be contracted.
Both acts require specific conditions to be met. In the case of the restaurant: the type of food, how it is to be prepared, when it is to be served, etc. In the case of the assassination: the intended target, as well as the time, location and method of the "hit"
Both acts require payments to be made.
Both acts involve the pro-active involvement of God's people. In this case, without their involvement the specific target won't be killed and the specific meal won't be prepared.
Both murder and Sabbath labor are CONDEMNED by God Almighty
Both murder and Sabbath labor are acts that require those involved to REPENT.
Now we will readily admit that there is not any possibility of a true child of God succumbing to murder as reflected in our scenario. A real Christian knows full well the horrific nature of this act and can appreciate the gravity of this sin. However, we offer it to illustrate that the rational for dining out on the Sabbath lacks the same moral clarity as that which was reflected in the "Hit Man" scenario. Whether this COG leader wants to admit it or not, every time he seeks out the services of restaurants on the Sabbath, he is soliciting a capital crime. The fact that they are habitual Sabbath-breakers changes nothing. With that said, let's try a different example.
Scenario II
"The Thief"
Imagine that this COG leader wanted to purchase a large screen plasma television and was looking for a real good deal. A friend refers him to a small unassuming shop in a remote area that "specializes" in such things. After selecting the features he wants and negotiating a price, this long standing servant of God is advised that his new TV must be acquired from the company warehouse and that he may pick it up on Thursday. This is great news because he will have it just in time for the NBA finals.
However, while waiting for the big day, this leader does some research and discovers that some of the televisions being sold at this shop are stolen. There is no doubt whatsoever that this is true. Although he can't prove it, his information is totally reliable. During his investigation he even determines that his particular TV was going to be stolen from a warehouse of a large well known retail chain.
What Should He Do?
It is undeniable that the price this COG leader had to pay for his TV was fantastic—less than half of that charged by others. However, he now knows that the merchandise will be "HOT"—"RED HOT." This minister then ponders his dilemma. What should he do? Hmmmm. Let's think about this.
He first reasons that although his television is stolen, he isn't the one stealing it. As a Christian, he would never do such a thing. Furthermore, the real thief is ignorant of God's law and truly can't appreciate his crime. Even after being confronted, the thief rationalized that he did nothing wrong because no one got hurt and some rich insurance company will pay the retail chain for their loss.
This COG leader then reasons that because of the thief's lack of conversion, God holds him to a different standard. This man will have his chance after he is called. Therefore, if the thief is held to a lower standard by God for his "act," then God must also hold this minister to a lower standard for accepting the merchandise. Now for the question.
Does God Almighty consider this COG leader
complicit in theft if he knew that the TV he
ordered and paid for, was going to be stolen?
Once again, we are certain that this COG leader would not succumb to the temptation portrayed in our hypothetical scenario. He can easily detect its moral defect. Furthermore, we are confident that he would be furious that we would offer it at all. Well, in fairness to him and others who agree with his endorsement of dining out on the Sabbath, let's try one last scenario.
Scenario III
"The Restaurant"
Imaging that this leader is dining at an exclusive Five Star Restaurant on a Friday evening. He made reservations three weeks ago and was truly looking forward to sharing this time with a few close friends from his congregation. He realizes that the menu is a little "pricey" but it is more than worth it—the food is superb and the service is legendary. Additionally, the atmosphere is wonderful—soft music, candlelit tables and a very sophisticated clientele. Add to that, this was God's Sabbath and NOTHING is too good for God. That is why this leader selected this particular bistro. He honestly thought it would be the perfect setting to ring in holy time.
The Conversation
After ordering wine and selecting dinner the fellowship begins. At some point, the conversation turns to dining out on the Sabbath. This leader knows his companions are sympathetic to his view so he boldly explains why he, and they, are totally innocent of any trespass of God's law. He reasons that even though his server is working on the Sabbath, at least he and his guests are not. Additionally, if this leader wasn't there his server would be assisting someone else. Therefore this minister reasons that he has not added to his server's burden. Additionally, although the entire staff at the restaurant are laboring on the Sabbath, they don't know any better. They are unconverted and totally ignorant of God's law. Because of this, the Almighty holds them to a different standard. That being the case, He must hold the believer who solicits their labor to a different standard as well. Anyway, It isn't as if this leader can prevent his server from profaning the Sabbath. There is not one thing he can do about it. Add to that, by dining out he and his guests won't be burdened with their own meal preparation on holy time. Therefore, no trespass has been committed.
Here is our question. Actually, we have a few questions.
- Are restaurant workers breaking God's law when they labor for this leader by preparing his meal and serving it to him on the Sabbath? If no, was the assassin or the thief breaking God's law when they performed their service?
- Is it possible for this leader to prevent restaurant workers from laboring for him on holy time? In other words, if someone offered his church one million dollars if he could prevent restaurant personnel from working on his behalf this Sabbath, is there something he could do to insure they wouldn't? We can think of one thing.
- If this COG leader insists on soliciting the services of restaurants on the Sabbath, would God Almighty consider him complicit in the labor they performed for him?
This minister may argue all he wants that he bears no responsibility for the Sabbath labor performed for him by restaurant personnel, but this is simply not true. He directs that labor and benefits from it. That is why he seeks it out and pays for it! Although the employee would be working for someone else if he wasn't there, so would the assassin and the thief.
