Strict Obedience is Pharisaical UCG vs A Sabbath Test

W hen 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 argument, 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 their words, followed by 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 the UCG fails to understand when advancing this 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 forbid 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 that 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:

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).

The bottom line is this. It is not the self-righteous that refrain from going to restaurants on the Sabbath. It is the self-righteous who believe you can do otherwise. They are the ones who “spin” God’s word to fit their traditions. They see God as tolerant of anything they do. But this is simply NOT true.

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 forbade. 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.

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."

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 they advocate. I'm 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 exornated him. This being the case, Is the UCG prepared to conceed that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is also unlawful? Our guess is NO.

Once again this COG "dream team" plays the same old card. They attempt to blur the lines between a once in a lifetime exception and what they wish to do on a regular basis. Later in their letter they will actually argue that Jesus' disciples picking grain on the Sabbath established a new "norm" for Sabbath observance. They will do this despite the fact that Jesus compared it to two acts of lawlessness.

Furthermore, while the UCG defends 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 an few days and was wondering if they could have some more shewbread? What do you think God's answer would be?

For these Church leaders to parade out "need," and "being hungry" as a defense of dining out on the Sabbath is a total misrepresentation of the truth regarding their position. They don't care one bit about need or hunger. They advocate this practice simply because they enjoy it. They just don't have the courage to admit it.

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 perverting the truth of scripture to advance their own lawlessness.

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.

What the UCG asserts in this section of their letter is despicably arrogant and 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?

Additionally, for the UCG to suggest that we "MIGHT conclude general principles of Sabbath-keeping from Exodus 16," is insulting. What do they mean by the word "MIGHT"? Are they suggesting that they "might not" as well? And what principles, if any, do they believe "might" be drawn from this straight forward command from GOD ALMIGHTY? Are they suggesting that the principle God's people "might" draw is to clean their house, wash their car, pick up their dry cleaning, but never concern themselves with food acquisition and preparation--this despite the fact that the only thing mentioned in Exodus 16 is food acquisition and preparation?

When God stopped providing manna, were the Israelites then permitted to acquire their meals on the Sabbath just like you?
When God stopped providing manna, were the Israelites then free to cook their Sabbath meals just like you?
When God stopped providing manna, were the Israelites then free to seek out unbelievers outside their gate on the Sabbath and pay them to labor on their behalf just like you?

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.

Personally, I believe the writers of this particular section of the UCG letter have taken a step of such unbridled defiance against God's clear command, that they should be summarily terminated. That's right--FIRED! These men don't speak for God. They speak against Him and His great Sabbath law. The idea that they can promote the argument of "No manna, no deal" as proof that they no longer have to obey God Almighty will one day come back and judge them.

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:

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.

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, it is trickery that would NEVER be advanced in a public forum because its deception would be exposed in a way that would bring their entire argument down like a house of cards. It is my personal opinion that there isn't one ounce of intellectual honesty in this phase of their case.

However, in the interest of fairness let's examine what God is really saying in the verse cited by the UCG.

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 food. Notice that He says these meals "may only be prepared by you."

Additionally, the UCG conveniently omits a very important fact. Although God did permit meals to be prepared on His annual Sabbaths, with the exception of the Day of Atonement, He absolutely prohibited meals to be prepared on His weekly Sabbath (Ex. 16:23). Sadly, the UCG attempts to play these two commands against each other instead of seeing them as totally reconcilable.

Furthermore, the UCG fails to present God's word concerning work as it relates to His Sabbath and holy days. In Leviticus 23 the Almighty identifies His Sabbath and all seven of His annual assemblies. It is interesting that His command not to work on the weekly Sabbath and not to work on the Day of Atonement are identical. There, He says NO WORK may be done. On the remaining holy days He says no "servile work" may be done. Why? Because on the remaining holy days God permitted them to prepare their own meals. However, when it came to meal preparation on the Sabbath, that practice was no more appropriate than if it was done on the Day of Atonement, when God commanded his people to refrain from eating altogether.

This now brings us to the unlikely time when a high day falls on a weekly Sabbath. This might come as a surprise to the UCG, but quite frankly, I don't know the answer. That's right. I don't know. However, this is what I do know. There is not a hint in the scriptures that suggests God's people may hire unbelievers to prepare and serve their meals to them at such a time. God's word absolutely forbids it. Is it possible they may prepare it themselves? Perhaps. I would even accept the belief that it is appropriate to do so. But once again this is an EXCEPTION.

The bottom line is this. While the UCG seeks out a possible exception to the rule so that they may declare the rule "null and void," what they are really doing is declaring God's law of none effect.

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.

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.

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 they seek out to labor on their behalf. After all, according to the UCG, 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?

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, the UCG attempts to prove that Jesus behaved in a way that went contrary to His Sabbath law as recorded in Exodus 16--by going outside his place on the Sabbath. They then reason that if Jesus can go outside "his place" on the Sabbath then they can acquire their food and hire someone to prepare it for them--which also contradicts Exodus 16.

However, we at Blow the Trumpet believe Jesus' behavior illustrates what God's word meant 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 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.

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 bring an end to this debate. Personally, I don't believe they are genuinely convinced of their claim. They are simply too proud to admit it.

The real tragedy here is that these COG leaders are telling God's people that it is permissible with the Lord of the Sabbath for them to seek out unbelievers who are profaning the holy and pay them to do so because these people aren't really in the "world" or, "spiritual Egypt" as we claim. Here is my question to you. Where do you believe God thinks they are?