Argument XIV
The Christmas Defense
How God's People Justify Sin
Perhaps the most recurring argument presented by Richard George in defense of dining out on the Sabbath is that a person’s motivation makes this behavior acceptable with God. In other words if the intent is right, the act itself is generally honored by our Creator. Armed with this belief Mr. George proclaims that his Sabbath dining practices please God because they please him. But is this true? Does motivation always carry the day with the Almighty? Or, does He require more?
Mr. George is not the first to promote the idea that intent can offset sin. As a matter of fact that notion is used prolifically in the professing Christian world today. They actually employ it in defense of a host of traditions they hold dear. Consider just some of the arguments they offer to those who question their “Sabbath” and “holiday” practices. For example: they contend that Christmas is a source of inspiration to millions around the world. Furthermore, it is beautiful and teaches children about the birth of Jesus; therefore, it must be good. Add to that the argument that Easter is equally appealing and teaches about the Messiah's resurrection; as a result, it too, must be good. When it comes to the day on which they choose to worship, their defense is compelling. After all every Sunday well intended “believers” sing praise to their maker and “worship” Him. Additionally, they read from the scriptures and give alms to the needy. Who would ever question their motivation? Who would argue that they are not genuinely driven by a desire to honor God? But how does the Creator see such things? Does He allow one's motives to trump His command? In other words will the God who commands His people to prepare their Sabbath meals on the sixth day suspend this law for Mr. George because he claims he can worship more effectively by having it prepared on the Sabbath--by unbelievers no less?
This very principle was addressed by the great prophet Samuel when rebuking King Saul for thinking he could use the ill-gotten spoils of war and present them to God as a sacrifice. Notice what Samuel says to Saul, and to Richard George for that matter.
And Samuel said, Hath the LORD as great delight in burnt offerings and sacrifices, as in obeying the voice of the LORD? Behold, to obey is better than sacrifice, and to hearken than the fat of rams. (1 Sam 15:22)
The point God was making through his trusted servant was that disobedience cannot be rehabilitated by claims that it is actually a form of worship. Regrettably, Mr. George makes this very claim. He repeatedly refers to his Sabbath dining experience as an expression of love and devotion to God. What he refuses to admit is that those who work in the restaurants he patronizes are in bondage to sin and that they are literally trapped in spiritual Egypt.
Mr. George begins this particular episode of “I Worship God at Restaurants,” by first taking issue with the authors of A Sabbath Test and their understanding of Nehemiah’s indictment of the nobles of Judah for buying and selling on the seventh day. He claims that Nehemiah wasn’t condemning all buying and selling on the Sabbath, only that which consumed the entire day. Mind you it doesn't say this anywhere, he just claims it does. Therefore, after engaging in this piece of revisionist history, Mr. George concludes that he may now seek out unbelievers who desecrate the Sabbath and avail himself of their sacrilege as long as he still attends services and “keeps the Sabbath holy.”
Mr. George:
Applicability of the Nehemiah Example
Both sermons rely heavily on this single episode, but you interpret it as condemning all buying and selling, without regard to whether there is holy purpose or intention.
Our Response:
It is fairly obvious where Mr. George is going here. He is now prepared to claim that his purchasing of the services offered by a God rejecting world is actually an act of HOLINESS. It is interesting that he refuses to concede that those who refuse to dine out on the Sabbath are also engaging in a positive expression of faith. Actually Mr. George mocks them. Here are two examples.
"If somebody can't see the value of restaurant meals in Sabbath-keeping, then they can choose to stay in the heat or cold, the car, the rain, and eat cheese/peanut butter crackers." R.L.George
"A loving God's Sabbath law is not intended to force me to fast on His holy feast day; to struggle with portable food and containers; or to eat in my car or in hot or cold, wet, or uncomfortable places." R.L. George
Mr. George then speaks with disdain about sharing a potluck Sabbath meal with God's people as opposed to eating with them at a restaurant. He characterizes potlucks as an "awful, inappropriate grind."
"The only reason we were able to take cold foods for a potluck after services was that one regular passenger was ill, and we stowed one of the coolers in her usual seat! We also noted that despite preparing all possible provisions on Friday, there was nearly an hour of servile work involved in final assembly, and getting the cooler packed and loaded into the car on the sabbath. As a rare exception, fitting God's permission in Exodus 12, the burden was manageable and the potluck went well. But what an awful, inappropriate grind it would be to do so every week!" R.L. George
Mr. George continued:
The situation Nehemiah addresses is clearly a large commercial market where the participants did full "business as usual" instead of Sabbath keeping -- not a place they sought fellowship at a meal they intended as part of their attempt to keep the Sabbath. No one in that market was buying a meal after worship; no one in that market had any intention of worshiping God in any way that day. That market was a complete rejection of God. That is the reason Nehemiah deplores it and takes action to eliminate it. Per Harris's authoritative Theological Wordbook of the Old Testament and other Hebrew language resources, the objectionable "victuals" sold there (Neh. 10:31, Strong's #7688) are bulk raw grain, not individual prepared meals, as Mr. Braidic suggests with his "lunch wagon" comparison. That "wholesale or bulk commercial market" and "work ignoring the Sabbath" is the correct understanding of what Nehemiah fought is readily apparent from further corroboration by all the remaining examples in context -- treading winepresses, bringing in sheaves, loading beasts (all three, Neh 13:15); merchants of fish with containers and pots (Neh. 13:16); and no heavy burdens brought in the gate (Neh. 13:19). It certainly seems to distort the facts to equate the Sabbath-breaking behaviors Nehemiah ended with Sabbath-keepers fellowshipping in restaurants.
Our Response:
Here Mr. George is suggesting that the issue with Nehemiah was the degree of labor and commerce being engaged in on the Sabbath. Our question to him is this, where does Nehemiah suggest that it would have been permissible for these merchants to sell their wares for an abbreviated time on God's day. The answer is: NOWHERE. Those who were engaging in selling their products were bringing sacrilege into God's Sabbath and God's people were buying the fruits of that sin. Is Mr. George actually suggesting that those who labor in a restaurant on the Sabbath are doing differently?
Now for arguments sake let's assume Mr. George is right and that Nehemiah was angry because the Jews were spending all day in the marketplace buying the wares of those who did not honor God's Sabbath law. Is he now suggesting that Nehemiah would have permitted another group of merchants who also profane the Sabbath, if God's people only spent an hour or two purchasing meals from them?
What Mr. George refuses to accept is that the restaurant he visits on the Sabbath is engaged in behavior that defies the very God he worships. Because of this ignorance he thinks his sin is acceptable to God because his Sabbath dining experience brings him (Mr. George) pleasure.
The belief that the goodness of something can be determined by the pleasure it brings is not new. This line of thinking has been at the center of every heresy ever crafted by men seeking to worship God. Furthermore, it is never the standard God applies when determining righteousness.
The fact of the matter is that the way something looks and feels does not determine its moral standing with the Creator and Sustainer of the Universe. God alone is the True Judge of what is good and what is evil. He is the great Moral Authority. His judgments are reflected in His great moral code: The Ten Commandments. If Mr. George truly desires to know what pleases his Creator, he should ask Him and stop trying to speak for Him.
Mr. George continued:
First, the motivations are opposite; second, the level of effort put out by the participants is opposite; and third, the results, the effect, the potential for learning about and loving God is opposite. It is these things -- the motives, the effort, and the results -- which separate Sabbath-breaking and Sabbath-keeping, not the mere exchange of small amounts of money.
Note from Blow the Trumpet
Dear Mr. George, in case you forgot.
"And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day..." (Neh. 10:31)
Dear Mr. George, in case you forgot.
"And if the people of the land bring ware or any victuals on the sabbath day to sell, that we would not buy it of them on the sabbath, or on the holy day..." (Neh. 10:31)
Mr. George continued:
By focusing exclusively on the monetary detail, your interpretation misses the main reason Nehemiah was battling. Nehemiah fought those who rejected God and the Sabbath entirely; not worshipers who differed on how best to honor the God they serve. Surely you must see the issue was not worshippers in the market, but marketers refusing to worship.
Our Response:
Returning to Nehemiah
Here Mr. George argues that because God, through Nehemiah, rebuked the nobles of Judah for doing their weekly shopping on the Sabbath and forsaking all worship, He would have permitted them to do their daily shopping that day if they also worshipped Him. Therefore, Mr. George believes that today he can go outside God’s spiritual camp and dine at a fine restaurant where God's Sabbath is being desecrated because by doing so he can gain a greater appreciation of holy time. Furthermore, he believes he can engage in this practice with God’s full blessing! This despite the fact that when God first introduced the Israelites to His Sabbath, He specifically prohibited them from attempting to do such a thing (Ex.16).
Mr. George anchors this particular argument on the belief that God was condemning the degree and motivation behind this act, not the act itself. In other words, if your intent is to enhance the Sabbath you may have your daily meals at a place that tramples all over this command. The problem with this argument is that there is absolutely no scriptural evidence for this conclusion and the authors of A Sabbath Test accurately bring this out.
Some leaders in God’s church today contend that Nehemiah’s indictment of buying and selling on the Sabbath was limited to the scope of purchases being made. According to their reasoning, the Jews in Jerusalem were going into the open market for the entire day and purchasing provisions for their homes. These provisions would last for several days and even longer in many cases. This would be tantamount to buying several hundred dollars worth of groceries today as well as performing other errands. As a result, the entire day was spent in activities totally unrelated to the Sabbath. The assumption here is that it is acceptable with God if only an hour or two are spent in activities totally unrelated to the Sabbath.
These leaders argue that Nehemiah would never have addressed this issue if God’s people invested a more abbreviated period of time doing family errands or some other activity. Furthermore, they contend that sharing a meal with brethren at a restaurant does not distract God’s people from the Sabbath, it actually keeps them connected to this day.
However, this reasoning represents a massive leap in logic. Nowhere does Nehemiah mention the length of this activity (buying and selling) as an issue, but rather the activity itself. Notice that Nehemiah was not attempting to restrict this practice, he was attempting to eliminate it altogether. It is true that some of God’s people may have spent the entire day purchasing goods and services, but that ignores a bigger question: why were they there at all? Nehemiah’s remedy was designed to address the latter.
Notice what Nehemiah did because of Judah’s sin regarding the Sabbath. He not only locked the vendors out of the city, he also locked God’s people inside the gates. Is it possible that with this bold move Nehemiah was enforcing God’s command that His people were not to go out of their place on the Sabbath—even if it was to procure food? The authors of A Sabbath Test then asked a critical question:
The big question God’s people should ask themselves is this: 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)? (A Sabbath Test pp 135-136)
Earlier in the book, the Authors of A Sabbath Test offer some important perspective on the practice of dining out on the Sabbath today and the action Nehemiah took so very long ago.
Today it would be impossible to do what Nehemiah did during Judah’s captivity. God’s people do not have that kind of power or influence. Therefore, they couldn’t possibly lock up restaurants to prevent believers from buying food on the Sabbath. However, God’s people can do something else. They can lock the vendors out of their lives on God’s day. Regrettably, many, including their leaders, don’t. (A Sabbath Test p. 55)
Argument XV