But the house of Israel rebelled against me in the wilderness:

they walked not in my statutes, and they despised my judgments,

which if a man do, he shall even live in them; and my sabbaths they greatly

polluted: then I said, I would pour out my fury upon them in

the wilderness, to consume them.

Ezekiel 20:13

     I n this particular phase of his message, Mr. Ritenbaugh contends that because Jesus allowed His disciples to pick a handful of grain once in their life on the Sabbath, God's people may now periodically go out into spiritual Egypt and hire Sabbath-breakers to pick it for them and prepare it. We realize he wouldn't describe his words this way, but that is because he is under the illusion that a restaurant in our modern world isn’t spiritual Egypt.       

     Mr. Ritenbaugh begins by quoting this event as recorded in the gospel of Matthew.

John Ritenbaugh:

Matthew 12:1-8

At that time Jesus went on the sabbath day through the corn; and his disciples were an hungered, and began to pluck the ears of corn, and to eat. But when the Pharisees saw it, they said unto him, Behold, your disciples do that which is not lawful to do upon the sabbath day. But he said unto them, Have you not read what David did when he was an hungered, and they that were with him; How he entered into the house of God, and did eat the showbread which was not lawful for him to eat, neither for them which were with him, but only for the priests? Or have you not read in the law how that on the sabbath days the priests in the temple profane the sabbath, and are blameless? But I say unto you, That in this place [meaning Himself] is one greater than the temple. But if you had known what this means, I will have mercy and not sacrifice, you would not have condemned the guiltless. For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

          

"Even the Pharisaical Jews considered the work of a priest to circumcise a baby permissible on the Sabbath because of the reason the circumcision was done. Jesus agrees with them, and He cites the labors of the priests on the Sabbath as acceptable for this same reason—that is, the reason He explains here in Matthew 12:1-8. Legitimate priestly responsibilities on the Sabbath are not sin.

       

Some of these responsibilities required a great deal of labor. Are you beginning to see that what the person does and how much energy the person expends is not always the issue. What they are doing, and why it is being done is what matters with God, because that brings a right judgment to mind."

Note from Blow the Trumpet

Mr. Ritenbaugh continued:

"Jesus also approved of Abithar's sharing of the showbread with David and his men. It does not say this in Matthew, but we learn by going back into the Old Testament that the priest was involved in this. It was actually his decision to do it. So Jesus approved of Abithar's sharing of the showbread with David's hungry men as right and good, even though written law, such as this sharing, was not permissible. Jesus is showing that legitimate human need overrides ceremonial law."

Note from Blow the Trumpet

Our Response:

     Mr. Ritenbaugh is incorrect when he states that it was the priest that made the decision to provide David and his men with the Showbread. The scriptures reveal that Ahimelech the priest saw this matter as beyond his authority. Therefore, he sought God's judgement. He actually informed Saul that it was God who made the decision to feed David (1 Sam. 22:15).

     This is unquestionably what happened with Jesus' disciples as well. They most certainly inquired of the Messiah to see if they could gather a small amount of grain to eat. Jesus consented. The point He was making when invoking David and the showbread was that the same God that gave him permission gave the disciples permission. However, here is what God was NOT doing. He was not giving David blanket amnesty to avail himself of lawlessness. His judgement was based on that unique circumstance at that particular time. In other words, if David returned six months later and made the same request the priest would once again seek the Lord's permission.

Mr. Ritenbaugh continued:

"Now, right in this context, did not Jesus permit His disciples to go through the field to pick and perform the simple preparations required in order to feed hungry men on the Sabbath? I am sure that this did not occur every Sabbath, but on this unusual occasion it did, and He met the situation in the manner described. Mercy, brethren, is greater than the sacrifice of going hungry."

Note from Blow the Trumpet

 

          

Mr. Ritenbaugh continued:

"What we are seeing then are reasons why the work performed is what matters. It carries the greatest weight in making the judgment. What I want us to see is that Jesus is clearly showing that even the law of God contains room for interpretations, because the "black and white" appearing law does not cover greater needs in every situation that might pop up in six thousand years of man's history."

Our Response:

     Contrary to what Mr. Ritenbaugh is suggesting, what happened to the disciples occurred once in their lifetime. There isn't a hint in scripture that suggests otherwise. Despite this fact, Mr. Ritenbaugh employs it to justify an on-going practice. We're just 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 an occasional 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 once in a lifetime, unique circumstance, that exonerated him, not the act itself. This being the case, Is Mr. Ritenbaugh prepared to concede that going to a restaurant on the Sabbath is also unlawful? Our guess is NO.

      Once again this COG leader plays the same old card. He attempts to blur the lines between a once in a lifetime exception and what he wishes to do on a regular basis. In essence, Mr. Ritenbaugh is intimating that Jesus allowing His disciples to pick grain on the Sabbath somehow established a new "norm" for Sabbath observance. What the Messiah did was an act of grace and mercy. What Mr. Ritenbaugh has done is to turn it into a license to sin.

      Furthermore, while John Ritenbaugh defends this 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 Church of the Great 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. Our 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 a few days and was wondering if they could have some more shewbread? What do you think God's answer would be?

      For this Church leader to parade out "need," and "being hungry" as a defense for dining out on the Sabbath is a total misrepresentation of the truth. God's word actually says something quite different. Some Israelites during the time of Moses were hungry on the Sabbath as well. So they decided to go out and gather some manna. Did God have compassion on their circumstance? The answer can be found in Exodus 16: 27-28.

And it came to pass, that there went out some of the people on the seventh day for to gather, and they found none. And the LORD said unto Moses, How long refuse ye to keep my commandments and my laws?

      It is interesting that in the case of both David and the disciples doing what was not lawful they had to receive specific permission from the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob to do so. However, Mr. Ritenbaugh spins this to mean that God now gives him blanket amnesty to engage in that which also goes contrary to His law. What Mr. Ritenbaugh has done is supplanted God with himself as the judge in such things.

      Mr. Ritenbaugh may attempt to hide behind exceptions to defend his advocacy of this on-going sin, but he does not have God's word in his corner. Sadly, he must rely on perverting the truth of scripture to advance his love of defiance.

A Day of Preparation

Return to Directory