Argument II
Jesus and Sabbath Breakers
In his attempt to justify dining out on the Sabbath, Richard George argues that Jesus ate at the home of Sabbath breakers. Therefore, he (Mr. George) can dine out at a restaurant where the Sabbath is also being profaned. He does this by manufacturing a Sabbath experience involving the Messiah in which every manner of evil is taking place. Mind you he needs to do this in order to defend his own Sabbath behavior. The point he is attempting to make is that Jesus doesn’t care if you go out into the world on God’s holy Sabbath and purchase the services of those who must break this command in order for you to engage in this activity. In essence Mr. George denigrates the Sabbath Jesus kept in order to rehabilitate the Sabbath he (Mr. George) keeps. To us this is more than a massive leap in logic. It is trivializing the scriptures and making a mockery of the holy.
Mr. George begins this fantasy by citing the fourteenth chapter of Luke’s gospel. Here, Jesus is dining at the home of a prominent religious figure (”a ruler of the Pharisees”). Based on the parables He would give at this meal, it is possible that the guest list was substantial. However, no one can say for certain how many were in attendance. Mr. George suggests it was at least 20 people and possibly 40 or more.
He then offers a theory of what this particular meal would have required. Suffice it to say, the labor was considerable, and according to Mr. George, was probably provided by paid non-believers. However, this portion of his argument relies entirely on conjecture and speculation. This isn’t a Biblical fact; it is human fancy offered as fact in an attempt to persuade everyone within earshot that Jesus was attending a Sabbath banquet complete with everything but the USC marching band. Furthermore, he draws only one possible conclusion with respect to the labor involved in serving the guests. To him it clearly profaned the Sabbath.
Mr. George then suggests that the Pharisee hosting this meal must have been a ruthless man driven by a huge ego as well as a bitter hatred of Jesus, thus this entire event must have been a plot to entrap Jesus while at the same time one designed to impress his friends. In case you don’t recall this story, perhaps you should read it.
In addition to claiming this home was a first century culinary labor camp, Mr. George introduces a depiction of Jesus’ dining experience that was anything but holy. According to his argument this home was also a spiritual den of iniquity. One commandment after another was being trampled on by the host and his friends, including the Sabbath. And there in the middle of it all was none other than Jesus of Nazareth. The point he is attempting to make is that if the Messiah could spend an occassional Sabbath surrounded by people that brazenly trampled all over God's day, then he (Mr. George) should be able to do the same in a restaurant.
Mr. George:
In Luke 14, the Bible records Christ attending what appears to be a meal involving a large number of diners at a Chief Pharisee's home, on the Sabbath. That is, He accepted an invitation to a Jewish Sabbath feast.
How can Christ's partaking of a free Sabbath meal prepared in advance be relevant to the question of buying and eating a meal commercially prepared on the Sabbath? With only a superficial glance, they do not seem to be related. To show how it is, we must answer a few basic questions:
1. How is the Sabbath kept?
2. Were the host and other guests keeping the Sabbath?
3. If they were not, did Christ's decision to company with them and accept their food make Him a participant in their sins?
The basic language of God's Sabbath commandment calls for (1) remembering the day and (2) keeping it holy. Of course, God has already made the day holy. We remember it and keep it holy by two main categories of behavior. First, we take positive, affirmative steps like worship, prayer, study, meditation, fellowship, singing hymns, etc. Second, we remember the Sabbath and keep it holy by not sinning. Any sin committed on the Sabbath dishonors the day.
Note from Blow the Trumpet:
Noticeably absent from Mr. George’s description of Sabbath requirements was any mention of work on this day. The scriptures are very clear on this point. Consider the following.
Exodus 20:8-11
The 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 thy God: in it you shall not do any work, you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your manservant, nor your maidservant, nor your cattle, nor the stranger that is within your gates: For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the Sabbath day, and hallowed it.”
Exodus 31:14-15
The Covenant
“You shall keep the Sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defiles it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever does any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people. Six days may work be done; but in the seventh is the Sabbath of rest, holy to the LORD: whosoever does any work in the Sabbath day, he shall surely be put to death.”
Mr. George continued:
According to Harmonies of the Gospels, there are more than 25 episodes, which reveal an established, continuing conflict between Christ and the Jewish leaders well prior to this Sabbath feast in Luke 14. Not only had Christ and the leaders exchanged harsh labels about one another, but there had already been attempts and plots on Jesus's life (Luke 4:16-31; Jn. 7:11-52; Jn. 8:21-59)! Invitations from them to eat (Lk. 7:36-50; Lk. 11:37-54; Lk. 14:) were blatant traps, not warm hospitality. (As the main weekly feast day, it's possible all three of these occasions were sabbath feasts, but only Luke 14 confirms the day.) The leaders were violating numerous of God's commandments attempting to trap Jesus. They coveted the respect the public was giving him (#10, and the spirit of #8); they bore false witness to Him and about Him through inviting him to eat under false pretenses (#9); they were acting in a hateful spirit of murder (#6); they were rejecting the lead of the true God and serving Satan (#1); and they claimed to bear the name of the true God as "God's people," but dishonored both Father and Son (#3). Such misbehaviors likewise dishonor one's parents (#5). These sins are unmistakable; and -- even though all sin carries a death penalty -- as a direct assault on the Most High and His Son, they are extremely serious Sabbath violations (#4) done on the Sabbath day. For purposes of this discussion, we can reasonably conclude they were not deliberately bowing to tangible idols at this Sabbath feast (#2) or committing sexual adultery there (#7).
So, this Bible account shows Jesus Christ participated in a meal provided by Sabbath-breakers, and which very likely cost money or required servant work on the Sabbath. The meal Christ ate was unquestionably prepared and served by spiritual Sabbath-breakers. From what we can conclude from the description, notwithstanding probable conformance to Jewish traditions, it also appears to have been served in a way which physically broke the Sabbath, too. Yet Jesus and his disciples partaking of it did not violate the Sabbath. He ate with His evil opponents ... without sin, without dishonoring God's Sabbath. Though the Pharisee should've hosted the meal on another day, Christ demonstrated it wasn't wrong for Him and his party to partake of it.
Christ's example in the circumstances this passage describes virtually match the question of eating out on the Sabbath exactly. He ate out; he let Sabbath-breakers feed Him. He could have declined the invitation, but He did not do so. Frankly, I would not do what the Chief Pharisee did. The Chief Pharisee unwisely chose his date; yet Christ, the perfect Sabbath-keeper, innocently consumed a Sabbath meal provided by Sabbath-breakers! How much more relevant and clear could an example be?
Our Response:
Here, Mr. George has painted a very bleak picture of Jesus’ hosts and the Sabbath they kept. He then argues that the Messiah saw nothing wrong with dining in such an environment, which in many ways was far worse than that provided in most restaurants today. Therefore, Mr. George concludes that God’s people may now dine out in a facility where the Sabbath is being violated because Jesus set that very example. Human reasoning? We think so.
For the sake of argument, let’s assume Mr. George is totally correct in his assessment of the Sabbath dining experience Jesus’ partook of in Luke 14. We offer this because there is one glaring omission in his point. Here it is.
It was not necessary for Jesus’ hosts to desecrate the Sabbath in order for him to dine with them.
On the other hand it is absolutely necessary for Mr. George’s restaurant personnel to desecrate the Sabbath in order for him to avail himself of their service.
In other words Mr. George must seek out those who profane the Sabbath in order for him to do what he claims Jesus did. We can’t imagine anyone appearing before God Almighty and presenting this explanation of his or her Sabbath observance.
Mr. George’s argument is not only a huge distortion in logic, it represents a very cynical view of first century Sabbath observance. To illustrate this point, consider how such an argument could be used to justify a variety of dining experiences today. Based on Mr. George’s view, God’s people today may dine out on the Sabbath at a restaurant that caters to murderers, liars, idolaters, prostitutes, drug peddler, pimps, pornographers and pedophiles just to name a few. After all Jesus allegedly ate with these types too.
It is true that Mr. George states that he can "reasonably conclude they were not deliberately bowing to tangible idols at this Sabbath feast (#2) or committing sexual adultery there (#7)," but why not? According to James, if you break one commandment you break them all (Jas.2:10). We offer this because Mr. George has gone to such lengths when accusing the Messiah's host of every sort of evil. This despite the fact that he doesn't have a clue who that host was. Furthermore, the only reason he is engaging in his condemnation of these men is so that he can seek out people in spiritual Egypt (restaurant personnel) and avail himself of their sin.
The dining experience recorded by Luke that Mr. George audaciously claims is a "perfect match" to eating out on the Sabbath doesn't come close. Regardless of how vigorously he tries to blur the lines between dining in a private residence and dining in a commercial restaurant, it just doesn’t work. Dining at a private home, even one owned by a Pharisee is quite different.
Setting the Record Straight
Although Mr. George argues that the Sabbath feast described in Luke 14 clearly violated the the fourth commandment and should have been held on another day, the scriptures suggest otherwise. Notice that Jesus addressed the host and exhorted him concerning what was taking place there. However, His issue was not with massive labor or treacherous plots that would have caused the profaning of the day. Why? Because what Mr. George saw didn't take place. The Messiah actually suggested that if the host does this in the future he should change the guest list.
Then said he also to him that bade him, When thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors; lest they also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou make a feast, call the poor, the maimed, the lame, the blind: And thou salt be blessed; for they cannot recompense thee: for thou salt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just. (Lk. 14:12-14)
For this reason it seems clear to us that the meal Jesus shared with these Jewish leaders was not some contentious ambush. To be sure a test was presented to the Messiah. But there was no debate here. Jesus addressed the issue with great clarity and in doing so taught a wonderful lesson about mercy. Furthermore there is no evidence proving that the host was even complicit in this test.
If this had been the great labor intensive feast Mr. George suggests, Jesus' reaction would have been considerably different and the host would have been thoroughly disgraced. It is our belief that at the end of the day the Messiah graciously thanked the master of the home for his hospitality after which He left, nothing more, nothing less. We admit that we were not there, but that is how it plays out to us. However, if it was another way, it still makes no difference. Jesus had a reasonable expectation that these religious leaders would keep the Sabbath. At a restaurant there can be be no such expectation. That is a BIG difference.
Our Note Continued:
Because the Sabbath is Holy, it can only be governed by a Holy God. That God thinks differently than man. His wisdom is perfect. Furthermore, His wisdom is not driven by self-interest. It is driven by righteousness. Because of this, God provides some very specific instructions concerning how His Sabbath is to be honored. The following are some of the things He specifically commands His people to do regarding this day.
To assemble with God’s people before Him (Lev.23: 2-3, Heb. 10:25)
To rejoice and call the Sabbath a delight (Isa. 58:13)
To honor God (Isa. 58:13)
Perhaps the best way to understand how the Sabbath should be kept is to follow the example of Jesus Christ, the Lord of the Sabbath. Here are some of the things He did when honoring this day.
He assembled in the synagogue (Mk. 1:21)
He read from the scriptures (Lk. 4:16)
He healed the sick (Mk. 1:29)
He shared meals with brethren (Lk. 14:1-6)
He took walks with friends (Mt. 12:1)
He inspired hope in the weak (Lk. 13:15-16)
He stayed in constant contact with His Father
What are God’s people to refrain
from doing on His Sabbath?
Not only has God provided clear instruction concerning how the Sabbath is to be honored, He also explains how it can be profaned. The following are some things God forbids His people to do on His Sabbath.
They must cease from labor (Ex, 20:8-10, Deut. 5:13-14)
They must not compel others to labor on their behalf (Deut. 5:14-15)
They must not compel their livestock to work (Ex. 20:10, Deut. 5:14)
They must not engage in business, buy or sell (Ne. 10:31; 13:15-21)
They must not engage in business, buy or sell (Ne. 10:31; 13:15-21)
They must not speak their own words (Isa. 58:13)
They must not trample on this day (Isa. 58:13)
They must not go outside the community of faith (Ex.16: 29)
Argument III