A Matter of Conscience UCG vs A Sabbath Test

T he 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 and 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 choice. Notice how they advance this part of their case.

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. 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, 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."

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?

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.

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.

These merchants [referred to in Nehemiah 13] were knowingly defying the Sabbath in a culture where Sabbath-keeping was a legally protected national custom. This is not the case in our culture today. We do not consider eating out on the Sabbath as paying for "the fruit of their sacrilege." Much of the food sold in grocery stores may have been harvested or packaged on the Sabbath. By your definition, these products would also be "the fruit of their sacrilege."

The account of Nehemiah's encounter with the merchants selling merchandise on the Sabbath illustrates the importance of keeping the Sabbath holy by not treating it as an ordinary day for marketing or shopping. However, we do not believe it is possible to equate this problem with eating out on the Sabbath. The conditions that existed then were in some ways more similar to those of the millennial rule of Christ than to conditions in our culture today. The Sabbath was part of the law of the land, which Nehemiah had authority to enforce. The nation was being restored to the worship of the true God after having been in captivity. These factors do not exist today.

God's people today are a minority group seeking to live God's way in a world that rejects many of the laws of God, especially the true Sabbath. We are widely scattered, which often requires traveling many miles on the Sabbath to attend services. Church pastors have to travel even more, which could result in the need to purchase fuel on the Sabbath (which by your reasoning is making unbelievers labor on the Sabbath to serve us).

These are not excuses for not keeping the Sabbath, but these and other factors pose challenges to Sabbath-keepers to determine how to keep the Sabbath in a way that will result in the blessings that God intended the Sabbath to give us. We believe that the key to achieving these positive results lies in understanding the basic principles of the Sabbath and determining how to apply those principles in the context of our culture, not by taking specific instructions from Old Testament passages that relate to very different and even unique historical contexts.

What is it about our culture today that makes the UCG believe they have no choice in this issue? After all, they don't dine out on the Day of Atonement. Does our culture somehow change on that day? And what about the pressure many employers apply to God's people regarding working an hour or two after sunset on Friday? This also is a reality in our current culture. Should God's people cave into this as well? After all, it is not as if they would be treating the entire day as a work day.

This portion of the UCG letter further illustrates the lengths people will go to when justifying their behavior--and contrary to what they assert, these are EXCUSES. They are a slick way to manipulate God's word in order to engage in a behavior simply because it gives them pleasure. Once again, these UCG leaders attempt to blur the lines between an innocent act and their sin. This is done so that they can engage in sin and still claim it to be righteousness. They even go so far as to suggest that what Blow the Trumpet does at a super market during the week is no different than what they do at a restaurant on God's Sabbath. They then attempt to manufacture hypocrisy in Blow the Trumpet's position on the strength on the words "may have." Notice what they write.

In these two sentences the UCG argues that there is no difference between us going to a market on Monday and purchasing food that "may have been" the product of Sabbath labor, and them going out to a restaurant on the Sabbath where it is absolutely essential that profane labor be done. In other words, in order for them to dine out on the Sabbath, they absolutely need someone to break God's law. We, on the other hand, don't require any such thing. Furthermore, there is no Biblical prohibition against purchasing products that may have come into contact with Sabbath labor, provided the labor wasn't done at your request. When it comes to dining out on the Sabbath the UCG is placing an order that they expect to be filled by working on holy time.

While the UCG claims that what they do is no different than what we do, this is simply not true. Once again their goal is not to seriously explore what pleases the Lord of the Sabbath, it is to justify their SIN--and to do so they must misrepresent the truth with respect to our two behaviors.

The UCG then argues that if God's people had the authority to shut down businesses on the Sabbath like Nehemiah did, they (the UCG) would do so. However, because they have no such authority, God now approves of them paying these Sabbath-breakers to labor on their behalf on holy time. They do this despite the fact that God's Sabbath law shouts out that what takes place in a restaurant every Sabbath is an egregious sin.

Tragically, what the UCG fails to understand is that they do have the power to emulate what Nehemiah did. If these leaders honestly read what took place in Jerusalem when this great servant took action, they would discover that he expelled the merchants from the city. That's right! He kicked them out--including the men of Trye who did not know the true God. He then warned the Jews that if these Sabbath-breakers returned to do business on Holy time, God's people were not to purchase any of their wares--NOT ONE THING (Neh. 10:31).

Today God's people can do just what Nehemiah did. They have the power to lock the merchants out of their lives on the Sabbath. They also have the power to not buy their goods and services. However, because the UCG is so intoxicated with this practice, they ignore the enduring moral principle revealed in this powerful lesson taught by Nehemiah's bold action. Sadly, instead of locking merchants out of their lives on the Sabbath as Nehemiah did, the UCG actually seek them out and embraces their sin as a necessary enhancement of Sabbath observance. To me, that is pathetic.

The UCG also contends that what took place in Jerusalem during the days of Nehemiah involved turning the entire Sabbath into a market day and therefore, doesn't apply to them. They then imply that Nehemiah would not have had a problem with the Jews just spending an hour or two paying a Sabbath-breaker to make them a meal on holy time.

This is an argument that would make any criminal defense attorney proud. The strategy is really quite simple. Find a way to prove that it is impossible to obey God in this matter because the scriptures are not specific enough to address their particular situation. What they fail to mention is that Nehemiah's remedy addressed ALL buying and selling. He did not restrict the practice to one or two hours, he eliminated it altogether. Sadly, these Church leaders refuses to admit this truth.

This UCG tactic can almost always work if one is creative enough. For example, if the Jews during Nehemiah's day were only eating lunch at a restaurant on the Sabbath, the UCG could argue that the scriptures are silent about going out to breakfast or dinner. After all the Bible only mentions lunch. Or, if people were buying meat on the Sabbath when Nehemiah rebuked them, the UCG could argue that it doesn't say you can't buy vegetables.

What these leaders are doing in this phase of their argument is attempting to convince the Church that when Nehemiah said that God's people were not to buy ANYTHING on the Sabbath or Holy day (Ne. 10:31), what he really meant was don't spend all day shopping. Personally, I believe Nehemiah's actions proclaim that he didn't want God's people to come into any contact with merchants on God's Sabbath. That is why he expelled them from the city. They had come within the gates of Jerusalem and profaned what God had made holy. Nehemiah forced them outside the city gates. Consider his actions in light of the fourth commandment concerning the "stranger within your gates" (Ex. 20:10, Dt. 5:14).

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.

Once again the United Church of God attempts to blur the lines between exceptions and rules, 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 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 nonsense, 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.

When citing the story of Jesus disciples picking grain on the Sabbath, the UCG suggests that the Messiah was introducing a new approach to honoring holy time, and that His point was to teach that a practice that may have been wrong under the Old Covenant was now acceptable under the New Covenant. However, this understanding couldn't be more incorrect. To illustrate this point consider the following.

Contrary to what the UCG claims, Jesus never picked, nor ate, anything Himself. Only His disciples did. The question we need to ask ourselves is, Why? Why wouldn't Jesus pick the grain like His disciples? Read on.
Jesus likened what the disciples did to David eating the shewbread. There, He specifically said that it was unlawful for him (David) to do so (Mt 12:3-4). The point here is that Jesus was not suggesting that what the disciples did was now lawful. He was acknowledging just the opposite. Furthermore, the reason Jesus didn't pick any grain was because to do so would have gone contrary to God's law and the Messiah never offended in one point of the law.
Jesus' indictment of the Pharisees was that they condemned the "guiltless." The question for us to understand today is why were the disciples considered "guiltless" by the Messiah, if their act was unlawful? It was NOT because of what they did. It was because of why they did it. The disciples were hungry, just like David and his men were. This was a once in a lifetime act, not a regular practice. The point Jesus was making was that just as God showed mercy in the Old Testament, He shows mercy in the New Testament.

For the UCG to hold this example in the life of the Messiah as proof that they can make plans to dine out on the Sabbath 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, they have rejected the true meaning of the words 'I desire mercy and not sacrifice,' and have represented them to mean "If you can do that which is unlawful once, then I can do it as often as I wish."

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.

Throughout their letter, the UCG argues that because God's word permits certain behaviors under certain circumstances, it must permit their behavior. The problem with this thinking is that the only time the scriptures address their behavior is to CONDEMN it, not condone it like the UCG does. God was so adamant regarding His people not seeking out their Sabbath meals on holy time that He said to engage in such a practice constituted proof that they rejected Him and His law (Ex. 16:4). Jesus and His disciples certainly never did it, despite what the UCG claims. Additionally, there is not one example in the scriptures where the Almighty doesn't offer a scathing indictment against those who seek out and pay for Sabbath labor.

Furthermore, it is one thing to eat something that was unknowingly offered to an idol and another thing altogether to seek out the idolater and purchase the fruit of his sin. However, when it comes to dining out on the Sabbath, the UCG is doing just that. They are seeking out restaurants because they are SABBATH-BREAKERS. Without this sin it is impossible to do what gives them pleasure on this day. This is what Paul was addressing in the passage cited by the UCG. God's apostle specifically stated that if the Corinthians knew the meat was offered to an idol they were NOT to eat it (1 Cor. 10:28).

When the UCG tries to sell God's people on the idea that Paul would have approved of their behavior, they don't have his words to support them. Paul never engaged in such a practice, nor did he condone it.