Questions and Answers about The Sabbath

Questions Answered

The Sabbath

The book A Sabbath Test has prompted many individuals to look deeper into the meaning of the Sabbath and how to correctly keep it. Below are some of the more frequently asked or interesting questions we have received and answers to them. If you have any other questions, please contact us.

Printer friendly page

Does the Sabbath begin at sunset or when it is dark?

Should we not use utilities on the Sabbath?

Does kindling a fire on the Sabbath apply to a stove, heater or electricity?

What about reheating food on the Sabbath?

Is it permissible to eat at a restaurant on the Sabbath when traveling?

Does fellowship validate eating out on the Sabbath?

What about recreational activities on the Sabbath that do not require currency transactions?

What should I do when my church teaches and practices dining out on the Sabbath?

Does the church have the power to bind and loose on this issue?

Did Ahimelech enquire of the Lord for David?

Does Mark 2:27 give us permission to eat at restaurants on the Sabbath?

Is refusing to dine out on the Sabbath being weak in the faith?

Isn't Nehemiah only a history book and not to be taken the same way as the other books?

Did the authors of A Sabbath Test plagiarize material from another source?

What about using public transportation?

Did Paul change regarding meat offered to idols?

Question
Does the Sabbath begin at sunset or when it is dark?

Answer
It has been the longstanding position of God’s Church that the Sabbath begins and ends at sunset. However, recently, some have questioned this understanding and now contend that the day begins not at sunset but rather at dark.

It has even been suggested that in order to ensure that God’s Sabbath is fully honored, His people should begin their Sabbath observance shortly before sunset on Friday and conclude its observance shortly after dark on Saturday evening, a practice embraced by some conservative Jews. This practice stems from the belief that the Bible is unclear on the specific timing of the Sabbath. Therefore, it is better to err on the side of this expanded view rather than risk violating this very important commandment. For more information on this subject visit our Articles and Notes page for the article titled The Sabbath - Sunset or Dark?

Question
If we are not to eat out at restaurants or conduct business on the Sabbath, should we also not use utilities? By using them are we causing others to work for us on the Sabbath?

Answer
While it is wrong to do business at restaurants on the Sabbath, it is not necessary to avoid using utilities.

There is a vast difference between eating at a restaurant and turning your lights on or using the water at home. Eating out at restaurants directly breaks the fourth commandment in several ways. By eating out, we are required to enter a place where business is being conducted. We then place an order causing servers and chefs to perform specific work for us. We then exchange money for their products and services on the very Holy Day. All of these activities break the Sabbath and all of these things are within our direct control.

While those who produce our utilities might be working on the Sabbath, what they do is NOT within our control. This is the issue at the heart of the question. What is within our control?

While many claim that restaurant workers are working whether we use their services or not, this is NOT actually the truth. When we partake of restaurant services, we directly add to the workload of those serving us. To get paid they must follow our requests as they work to fulfill our order. We then pay them directly, thus we are conducting business and directly causing work to be done specifically for us on the Holy Day.

When it comes to those who provide the city with water and power, the argument that they are working no matter what we do IS valid. They will be working if we use the utilities or not. Turning on a light or taking a drink of water may cause a meter to turn, but no one is forced to read the meter or to do more work on our behalf. In addition, no one is required to send us a bill for the utilities used on the Sabbath day, and no one is paying for it on the Sabbath.

The fact that we do not create more work for the utility employees and we do not pay for these services on the Sabbath makes a vital difference. The charges incurred for the use of their services is prorated over time. It is like rent, the cable bill, or mail delivered. We are not held responsible in these cases.

We are only answerable for those things within our control. Choosing to do business at a restaurant or a grocery store is within our power. The work done at a utility company and our expenses incurred for these services on the Sabbath are outside our control.

In this framework, there are other principles regarding the use of utilities on the Sabbath and why they need not be turned off on the Sabbath. Consider that the use of gas, electricity and water is necessary to preserve property and life in this current society in which we are sojourners. We need utilities for safety and health reasons. God does not expect us to turn off the heat in a snow storm letting our children freeze because it is the Sabbath. He would not expect the elderly to go without air conditioning on a day when it reaches 110 degrees. God would not expect us to refuse to dial 911 if we witnessed a terrible car accident and someone needed help. We need utilities to preserve life and property in our society today. They are the exact principle which is inherent in Christ’s ox in a ditch scenario.

It is even probable that such services will also be required in the Kingdom. Certainly there will be responsibilities that will be necessary to perform then, and they will likely be fulfilled by remote systems with only a few volunteers on the Sabbath.

Until that time comes, we are pilgrims and strangers in this land. The cities we live in provide the utilities necessary for their city to run. Living in their society we do not cause others to work by using these utilities and we do not pay for them on the Sabbath. Therefore, it is the judgment of the Eternal Church of God that it is not necessary to turn off one’s utilities on the Holy Day. It is not a sin to use lights, gas or water on that day.

Question
Does God’s command to not kindle a fire on the Sabbath apply to a stove, heater or electricity?

Answer
There are some who believe that because the scriptures forbid Christians from kindling a fire on the Sabbath that we should not burn wood, use gas appliances, or electricity.

This belief is primarily taken from three sources. The first of these is the account in which God gave the Sabbath as a test command to the people of Israel (Exodus 16:22-27). Moses explained to the people that God would provide manna every day, but on the sixth day they were to gather twice as much. God commanded that they were to bake or boil however much they wanted on the previous day and lay up the leftovers to be eaten on the Sabbath. This requires that no cooking take place on the Sabbath. From this scripture it is clear that a fire was not to be kindled for the purpose of cooking a meal. However, the verse nowhere forbids having a fire in a person’s home for heat. It does not forbid placing a log on an existing fire. Only the work of gathering, kindling, building and using a fire for cooking were forbidden.

In another example, after the Ten Commandments were given, a man was found gathering sticks on the Sabbath (Numbers 15:32-33). While the scriptures do not actually state that the purpose for his gathering these sticks was for the purpose of kindling a fire, many scholars believe this to be the case. Certainly, the result of this transgression required the highest penalty (Numbers 15:35). Thus the severity of breaking the Sabbath was established in the minds of every Israelite. However, it must be stressed that this verse does not directly speak of fire. Instead it refers to the man doing the work involved in gathering sticks.

A third example is found when the people were instructed to build the tabernacle. In this case God spoke of the Sabbath saying, “Whoever does any work on it shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day” (Exodus 35:2-3). Many have read this verse and believe that it forbids having a fire of any kind. However, the context of this verse reveals that these words are introductory statements preceding the instructions for building the tabernacle and the work of preparing its construction (Exodus 35:4-10).

The prohibition against kindling a fire is directly related to the building of the tabernacle and the various metal and other materials necessary for the artisans. At this time, many of the craftsmen prepared their part of the construction at home and transported it to the temple for installation. In many cases, especially in metal work, a fire was necessary in their production techniques. God realized that in their zeal to build the temple, there could be a tendency to let the end justify the means. Some would think that they could work on the Sabbath because it was work they were doing for God. For this reason, The Almighty prefaced His instructions regarding this wonderful building project by reminding the people that they were to keep the Sabbath holy, and that meant they were not to kindle a fire on this day, even if it was for His service. Thus, while the Lord commanded the people to bring their offerings for the temple, He made it clear before they began. This offering was not to include or condone a person to work at their trade on the Sabbath.

This makes it clear that God did not want the people to do any work on the Sabbath. He was not against fire or heat on the Holy Day. For example, the word “kindle” means to build or ignite a fire. This indicates starting a fire from scratch. The work involved in kindling a fire is forbidden by God on the Sabbath and it is believed that this was implied by His judgment upon the man who gathered sticks on the Holy Day.

These three examples make it clear that God does not permit His people to gather wood and build a fire from scratch. He does not want us to use a fire for the purpose of cooking or doing business on the Sabbath. In these things we see the scriptures are in complete unity. They make it clear that what takes place in restaurants on the Sabbath is a sin. Restaurants produce the exact kind of commercial fire God forbids and they use it for cooking meals for consumers.

Regarding an existing fire burning, Exodus 35 is the only one that speaks specifically of kindling a fire, and it is obvious that the reference is to a fire for industrial or commercial purposes. However, there is absolutely no verse in the Bible that tells us we cannot have a fire for the purpose of heating a home. There is no prohibition against heating the home for a new born child, infirmed or elderly person. Nothing prohibits preparing a fire and setting wood beside the fire place on the preparation day. In such a case, it takes little effort to place an occasional log on the fire. This is not work. The labor involved was done beforehand, according to the commandment, and therefore no sin is involved.

It must also be understood that utilities we use today are not breaking the Sabbath. Electricity is not fire. It does not take work to press a button or turn a knob. There is no kindling of a fire that takes place on the Sabbath when we reheat food that was prepared and cooked the day before. God is not concerned with the temperature of our food. He is only concerned with how much time and effort we take in preparing it on His Sabbath. The Eternal makes it clear that it is the work involved in preparing a fire and cooking food that is the issue.

Question
Is it permissible to eat at a restaurant on the Sabbath when traveling?

Answer
Some believe that while it is generally wrong to do business in a restaurant on the Sabbath, it is acceptable to do so when traveling. They quote the account of Jesus and His disciples walking through the grain fields and picking grain as justification for this practice.

First, it is our belief that people should not be traveling on the Sabbath. When God first introduced the Sabbath to ancient Israel, He told them that on the seventh day they were not to go out of their place (Exodus 16:29). Of course, this referred to them abiding in their tents and not going out for the purpose of gathering manna. However, consider the modern day parallel. We should not leave the community of believers and go out into the world for the purpose of procuring food on that day! The precedent was set at the time of the Exodus to prepare the day before, and not travel or do business on the Sabbath.

Many of the Jews understood the command not to go out of your place to mean do not go outside the camp. For this reason, when they were finally settled in the promised land, they judged that no man was to go out of his or her place, meaning no farther than the estimate of the camp or one thousand cubits (about an English mile). This came to be called a Sabbath day’s journey, and it appears that this was the understanding and practice of the early church (Act 1:12).

Also consider that when Jesus said that the priests were blameless when they performed their duties on the Sabbath, He meant that they were only blameless when they were doing the work necessary to perform their priestly duties which were commanded by God. Thus, they were blameless when they performed circumcision on that day. They were blameless when they performed the required Sabbath sacrifice.

However, Jesus did not mean that the priests were blameless if they broke Sabbath laws while they were not in the direct line of duty. In other words, they were not blameless if they stole that day. They were not blameless if they took God’s name in vain or worshiped idols. Neither would they be blameless if they decided on their own to walk for ½ of the day, stop at an inn and pay for food, and then visit a widow while it was the Sabbath. God might expect the priest to do such a service for a widow, but He would most certainly expect it to be done the previous day (the preparation day) and not on the Sabbath.

Today the ministry is generally paid and they have time to travel to the church they are visiting or the individuals who need to be served before the Sabbath begins. If travel is absolutely necessary on the Sabbath, it is easy enough to simply pack a lunch in an insulated container and eat on the way. There is no need to break the Sabbath for our personal convenience, and the ministry is to be the example to the brethren, not the exception.

Question
Did Ahimelech enquire of the Lord for David?

Answer
In our book The Sabbath Test we state that the priest enquired of God for David, and that Christ, the God of the Old Covenant, gave him permission to eat the shewbread. The book implies that if life or property is not threatened—such as an ox in a ditch—that we can only do business on the Sabbath if God gives us a similar special dispensation as He did for David.

Some ministers are now teaching that it is acceptable to do business by dining out at a restaurant on the Sabbath when the individual is traveling. They quote the account of Jesus and His disciples walking through the grain fields and picking grain as justification for this practice and cite the fact that when accused of wrong, Jesus brought up the account of David eating the shewbread which was also unlawful to do. They say that what is said about the priest enquiring in The Sabbath Test is not true. They teach that when Doeg said that the priest enquired for David, he actually lied. In other words, the priest did not enquire for David. What is true? Did the priest enquire for David or not?

We understand the Scriptures to say that the priest did enquire of the Lord, thereby getting permission from God to give David the bread. Thus it was not given to him as a decision that the priest made on his own! And, the lesson for us is that, like this example of David, we also do not have the authority to decide to do something unlawful on our own.

To prove this belief let us go to Samuel where he first writes of the account, omitting any statement of the priest enquiring. The prophet writes:

Then came David to Nob to Ahimelech the priest: and Ahimelech was afraid at the meeting of David, and said unto him, Why art thou alone, and no man with thee? And David said unto Ahimelech the priest, The king hath commanded me a business, and hath said unto me, Let no man know any thing of the business whereabout I send thee, and what I have commanded thee: and I have appointed my servants to such and such a place. Now therefore what is under thine hand? give me five loaves of bread in mine hand, or what there is present. And the priest answered David, and said, There is no common bread under mine hand, but there is hallowed bread; if the young men have kept themselves at least from women. And David answered the priest, and said unto him, Of a truth women have been kept from us about these three days, since I came out, and the vessels of the young men are holy, and the bread is in a manner common, yea, though it were sanctified this day in the vessel. So the priest gave him hallowed bread: for there was no bread there but the shewbread, that was taken from before the LORD, to put hot bread in the day when it was taken away. Now a certain man of the servants of Saul was there that day, detained before the LORD; and his name was Doeg, an Edomite, the chiefest of the herdmen that belonged to Saul (1 Sa 21:1-7).

In the account above, there is no mention of the priest enquiring of God in order to get permission to give David the shewbread. However, Doeg, a servant of Saul witnessed the events, and when Saul caught up with the priests, he explained these things to Saul. The account is explained in the next chapter when Saul accosts those who helped David. Samuel records Saul to say:

That all of you have conspired against me, and there is none that sheweth me that my son hath made a league with the son of Jesse, and there is none of you that is sorry for me, or sheweth unto me that my son hath stirred up my servant against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? Then answered Doeg the Edomite, which was set over the servants of Saul, and said, I saw the son of Jesse coming to Nob, to Ahimelech the son of Ahitub. And he enquired of the LORD for him, and gave him victuals, and gave him the sword of Goliath the Philistine. Then the king sent to call Ahimelech the priest, the son of Ahitub, and all his father's house, the priests that were in Nob: and they came all of them to the king. And Saul said, Hear now, thou son of Ahitub. And he answered, Here I am, my lord (1 Sa 22:8-12).

In this set of verses Doeg told Saul that the priest enquired of the Lord for David. In those days, God had directed the priests to make an ephod. They wore a breast plate with 12 stones and the Urim and Thumin. When the priest wore the breast plate, he could enquire of God and these unique stones would light up indicating God’s judgment on a matter (Exodus 28:29-30).

Did Ahimelech enquire of the Lord for David in this manner, or did Doeg lie about this? Some believe that since verses 1-7 do not plainly state that the priest enquired, this act never occurred. However, there are many cases in the Scriptures in which a second account later clarifies what was not first stated.

A second point to consider is that when Samuel records the words of Doeg, he in no way contradicts his story. Samuel makes it clear that David lied about being on a mission for Saul. He makes it clear that Saul lied about the motives and character of David, and that Doeg joined him in that lie. However, Samuel never indicates that Doeg’s account was a lie.

Finally, consider that there was no reason for Doeg to lie about the priest enquiring on David’s behalf. The purpose of Doeg giving this report was to establish himself as Saul’s ally against David. If anything, Doeg’s statement about Ahimelech would lend itself to absolving the priest and David of any guilt against Saul. For example, if Ahimelech had asked God what to do, and God rendered a judgment, then neither the priest or, David were guilty. God alone was the responsible party.

On the other hand, if Doeg had said that the priest gave David the shewbread on his own authority, then it would appear that the priest and David were actually the conspirators that Saul believed them to be. From this story it is obvious that if Saul would have killed the priests knowing that they were only following God’s will, he certainly would have killed them for doing their own will.

Thus there was no advantage to Doeg for lying about the priest. To charge the priest with enquiring for David implicated him less not more. Further, Samuel does not say that he lied about this issue. These scriptures do not indicate that he lied about it, and to determine from this evidence alone that Doeg lied can only be a result of personal conjecture and speculation. Armed with only these verses, it can only be concluded that Ahimelech actually did enquire of the Lord for David.

Still, some believe that the priest did not enquire for David. They base this on two other verses. One of these is psalm 52 in which David wrote about the incident where Doeg implicated the priest and David in a conspiracy against Saul. In this psalm, David does call Doeg a liar, but what was it that Doeg lied about? Was it about the priest enquiring? David writes:

To the chief Musician, Maschil, A Psalm of David, when Doeg the Edomite came and told Saul, and said unto him, David is come to the house of Ahimelech. Why boastest thou thyself in mischief, O mighty man? the goodness of God endureth continually. Thy tongue deviseth mischiefs; like a sharp razor, working deceitfully. Thou lovest evil more than good; and lying rather than to speak righteousness. Selah. Thou lovest all devouring words, O thou deceitful tongue. God shall likewise destroy thee for ever, he shall take thee away, and pluck thee out of thy dwelling place, and root thee out of the land of the living. Selah (Psa 52:1 -5).

David wrote that Doeg loved lying rather than righteousness. Does this mean that he lied about the priest enquiring of the Lord? Or was he lying about something else? Notice first that nowhere in this psalm does David state that Doeg lied about Ahimelech enquiring. What then could his lie be about?

The incident started with Saul’s accusation that David conspired against him. He also accused all those who were present of siding with David against him. Likely fearing for his own life, Doeg implicated the priest in Saul’s false accusation in an attempt to ingratiate himself to the King for personal advantage. However, there was no advantage to his testifying that the priest enquired of the Lord. In fact, as stated earlier, his testimony that the priest enquired could be seen as an attempt to intimidate King Saul into not harming the priests. Therefore, what was Doeg’s lie?

His lie was two fold. First he was dishonest about David’s character. He implied that his motive for betraying David was honest, that David was a traitor to the king, and that Saul’s desire to kill him was legitimate. Doeg’s estimation of David was in stark contrast to Ahimelech’s true assessment. The priest knew David personally, and said the following about him:

Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who among all thy servants is so faithful as David, who is the king's son-in-law, and is taken into thy council, and is honorable in thy house? (1 Sa 22:14)

Secondarily, Doeg did not tell the truth about what had really happened. He should have told Saul that David had made Ahimelech believe he was on a mission regarding the king's business. This would have shown that the priest’s service to David was done to honor Saul. It would have cleared Ahimelech, and thrown all the blame upon David, who was out of the king’s reach.

Instead, Doeg’s story made it appear as though David was indeed a traitor, that the priest knew as much, and had joined himself with David in a plot to depose and murder the king.

Certainly Doeg’s lie was not that the priest had enquired for David. The lie was validating Saul’s accusation that David was out to kill him, and that the priest was involved in a conspiracy with him to hurt the king. Thus it is clear that, while the psalm calls Doeg a liar, it does not ever say that the lie was that Ahimelech enquired for David. This too must be understood.

There is yet another reason that some claim that Doeg lied about the priest enquiring. This is found in a statement made by Ahimelech himself. Samuel records Saul accusing the priests:

Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast enquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? (1Sa 22:13)

After this statement, Ahimelech defended David, and questioned Saul, saying, “Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? Be it far from me.” Reading this statement, in the King James Version, some interpret this verse to mean that Ahimelech did not enquire for David. However, this is not the case. This verse is actually saying that he had begun to enquire of God for David long before that day.

The priest is stating that he did not “begin” to enquire for David on that day because he had always enquired of the Lord for David in the past as he operated as a trusted servant of the king. Notice the context of this verse:

And Saul said unto him, Why have ye conspired against me, thou and the son of Jesse, in that thou hast given him bread, and a sword, and hast enquired of God for him, that he should rise against me, to lie in wait, as at this day? Then Ahimelech answered the king, and said, And who is so faithful among all thy servants as David, which is the king's son in law, and goeth at thy bidding, and is honourable in thine house? Did I then begin to enquire of God for him? be it far from me: let not the king impute any thing unto his servant, nor to all the house of my father: for thy servant knew nothing of all this, less or more (1 Sa 22:13-15).

In these verses, Saul accuses the priests of being complicit with David against him. Ahimelech answers him, explaining that he had only known David to be a faithful servant of the king. Then he questions Saul, “did I just now enquire of God for him? Ahimelech answers in the negative, signifying that he had enquired of God for him in the past, and that he knew nothing of such a conspiracy.

Sometimes the King James language can be difficult to understand. Therefore it is occasionally helpful to read accounts in other translations. When this is done for 1 Samuel 22, the other versions make it clear that Ahimelech was stating that he had enquired for David in the past, and it was always considered acceptable by the King in those cases. Why was it an issue now? Consider the wording of 1 Samuel 22:15 in some other translations.

The Contemporary English Version

This isn't the first time I've talked with God for David, and it's never made you angry before

The English Standard Version

Is today the first time that I have inquired of God for him? No!

The Good News Bible

Yes, I consulted God for him, and it wasn't the first time.

The American Standard Version

Have I to-day begun to inquire of God for him? be it far from me:

God’s Word Bible

Is this the first time I have prayed to God for him? Not at all!

The Holman Christian Standard Bible

Was today the first time I inquired of God for him? Of course not!

The Modern King James

Have I today begun to ask of God for him? Be it far from me.

The Message

Do you think that was the first time I prayed with him for God's guidance? Hardly!

The priest’s words, “did I then begin” could not mean anything else than that he had enquired for David before that day. If the priest had not enjoyed a long standing relationship with David before this, then he would have no reason to recommend David to the king as a faithful servant. The priest knew David from times past when in the service of the king. David had asked the priest for God’s judgment on matters. To this, most scholars and Bible commentators agree. Notice the comments of the following scholars:

Treasure of Scriptural Knowledge

Did I then: He seems to intimate, that his enquiring now for David was no new thing, having often done so before, without ever being informed it was wrong in itself or displeasing to the king.

Clarkes Commentary

Did I then begin to inquire of God - He probably means that his inquiring now for David was no new thing, having often done so before, and without ever being informed it was either wrong in itself, or displeasing to the king.

Matthew Henry

He had enquired of God for him (which the priest used not to do but for public persons and about public affairs) and he had furnished him with bread and a sword.

The Keil and Delitzsch Commentary

“Did I then begin to inquire of God for him this day?” i.e., was it the first time that I had obtained the decision of God for David concerning important enterprises, which he had to carry out in the service of the king? “Far be from me,”

Gill’s Commentary

Did I then begin to inquire of God for him? Was this the first time of inquiring of God for him? no; I have done this many a time, when he has been going upon the king's business, engaging in war with his enemies; he has then consulted the Lord by me, and I have inquired of the Lord for him, as I now did; and which I did as innocently, and as much for the king's service, as ever I did any.

It is clear from the words of the Bible and the understanding of many scholars that Ahimelech did enquire for David, and that the Creator of the universe, the being who would later empty Himself of His Majesty and divinity in order to become Jesus Christ, gave David permission to eat the shewbread. For this reason when interrogated by the Pharisees for allowing His disciples to eat the gleanings of the field, Jesus brought up this story of David eating the show bread. Jesus had given David permission to eat that bread in His day, and now He had given His disciples permission to eat the grain. For this reason, when questioned by His antagonists, Jesus told them that He was greater than the temple, and later added that He was the lord of the Sabbath (Matthew 12:3-8).

Question
What is your position on recreational activities on the Sabbath that do not require currency transactions?

Answer
The Sabbath was instituted as a day to be sanctified. It is to be set aside for holy use. The commandment refers to resting on this day and not doing any work, however, it is clear from examples such as golf, fishing, various ball games, bowling, dancing, bicycling, fishing, horseback riding, or any other "activity" do require work to be done.

Further, we believe that remembering to keep the Sabbath holy entails much more than not doing work, (Exodus 20:9-11). It entails far more than not doing monetary business (Nehemiah 10 & 13). Keeping the Sabbath holy involves everything that we do, but also what we say, and even what we think. As Isaiah tells us:

If thou turn away thy foot from the Sabbath, from doing thy pleasure on my holy day; and call the Sabbath a delight, the holy of the LORD, honorable; and shalt honour him, not doing thine own ways, nor finding thine own pleasure, nor speaking thine own words: Then shalt thou delight thyself in the LORD; and I will cause thee to ride upon the high places of the earth, and feed thee with the heritage of Jacob thy father: for the mouth of the LORD hath spoken it (Isaiah 53:13-14).

Speaking through the prophet Isaiah, God says that we are to keep our feet from trampling all over His Sabbath. It is holy, pure and set apart for the worship of God. Therefore, Isaiah explains that we are not to do our own pleasure. This means that we are not to be involved in recreational activities that are of this world such as our personal hobbies and our interests on this day. This does not mean that we should attempt to make the Sabbath a delight by doing things that bring us personal physical pleasure. The prophet tells us to call the Sabbath a delight because it is God's, its observance brings us closer to Him, and He is our delight. These verses in Isaiah even warn us against speaking our own words, meaning to talk about, or make plans for doing our business or pleasures on the Sabbath. Thus it is clear from scripture that recreational activities on the Sabbath are improper even if they do not require monetary transactions.

Question
What about reheating food on the Sabbath?

Answer
While God’s people are not to cook food on the Sabbath, it is permissible to warm up food that has already been prepared. God’s concern is not the temperature of the food a person eats. Rather, He places importance on the doing of work to prepare the food. For this reason He tells us to cook what we will on the sixth day. As Moses writes:

This is that which the Lord hath said, To morrow is the rest of the holy Sabbath unto the Lord: bake that which ye will bake to day, and seethe that ye will seethe; and that which remaineth over lay up for you to be kept until the morning (Exodus16:23).

Baking and seething refer to cooking and in that context, consider how much work there can be in preparing a meal. It may mean that meat is to be cut, seasoned, and cooked. Potatoes might be cut, mashed, seasoned, and cooked. Peas could need to be shelled and cooked. Finally, a cake may be baked for desert. All of this is very clearly work that must be done to prepare the meal.

Reheating food in a crock pot, pushing a button on a microwave, or turning a knob on the stove to warm up food that has already been cooked is not work. There was nothing needed to prepare it, the food is not being cooked, and it is no labor involved in warming it up.

This question about reheating food generally arises from a misunderstanding of two verses in the Bible. First, there is the account of the man gathering sticks on the Sabbath. God punished this man with death for his misdeed (Numbers 15:32-36). He had likely forgotten to build a fire on the preparation day and now thought that he could go out, gather sticks, and build a fire on the day which God had commanded not to do any work.

In this example, it is clear. He was gathering sticks for the fire. The real issue is not having a fire on the Sabbath, but doing the work to build and then kindle the fire. God actually does not command us to have no fire on the Sabbath. He does not expect the elderly or ill to freeze on His holy day. Instead, He tells man not to create a fire on this day. In other words, it is likely that families gathered sticks and wood on the preparation day. They would start a fire before the Sabbath and stack sticks of wood next to it beforehand. They could then simply add a piece of wood to the fire as needed to keep it going. The Israelites were allowed to have fire on the Sabbath, but they were not to do the work necessary to create a fire.

Another example that confuses some is the account in which God commands that no fire be kindled on the Sabbath. The writer of the Pentateuch states:

And Moses gathered all the congregation of the children of Israel together, and said unto them, These are the words which the Lord hath commanded, that ye should do them. Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a Sabbath of rest to the Lord: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death. Ye shall kindle no fire throughout your habitations upon the Sabbath day (Exodus 35:1-3).

A careful reading of the context of the above verses reveals that God was giving instructions for the building of the Tabernacle. It is in this context that He reminds all involved; they were to do no work on the Sabbath. This meant that no one was to kindle a fire.

The interpreter’s Bible explains that these verses in chapter thirty-four are a continuation of chapter thirty-one in which proper Sabbath keeping is associated with the work to be done on the Tabernacle. They state that the fire mentioned in Exodus chapter thirty-four refers to "fires needed for the work in metals" (Interpreter’s Bible, Vol I, p. 1082). For this reason, the next words of Moses are:

Take ye from among you an offering unto the Lord: whosoever is of a willing heart, let him bring it, an offering of the Lord; gold, and silver, and brass, And blue, and purple, and scarlet, and fine linen, and goats' hair, and rams' skins dyed red, and badgers' skins, and shittim wood, and oil for the light, and spices for anointing oil, and for the sweet incense, and onyx stones, and stones to be set for the ephod, and for the breastplate. And every wise hearted among you shall come, and make all that the Lord hath commanded (Exodus 35:5-10).

God’s people do not want to take a casual approach to observing His Sabbath, but neither do we want to err, not knowing the true meaning of the Scriptures. Therefore, from the context of these verses, we see that God is not disallowing man to have a fire. He is banning the work necessary to prepare and create it.

God wants us to keep His Sabbath Holy, set apart for special use, not the secular and mundane. Therefore it is wrong to do the regular work that we do during the week on this holy day.

Therefore it is wrong to cook food on the Sabbath and it is wrong to go out to eat at a restaurant where they are cooking the food for you. Such activities take away from the purity of our worship of God. Reheating food which has already been prepared, and heating it by means that does not cause work is not a sin.

Question
What should I do when our church teaches and practices dining out on the Sabbath, and we believe that it is a sin?

Answer
When brethren are attending with a group that believes in and practices dining out on the Sabbath, there can be great pressure brought to bear on individuals to fit in, be accepted and even compromise their beliefs. Therefore, we believe that this issue is a test for the people of God who are living in this end time. We do not advise leaving your current fellowship to relieve the pressure however. Instead, we recommend that without acting self righteous or superior that brethren stay within their congregation and there humbly serve and love God's children while holding firm and being an example for others by discussing the subject when asked or when it is appropriate (2 Peter 3:15).

The Eternal Church of God did not produce Sabbath Test in an attempt to draw away members from other churches. The authors decided to publish the book because the larger churches were not addressing the subject and this spiritually dangerous practice of doing business on the Sabbath was becoming more and more common place within the church.

The purpose of the book was always to bring the truth to the attention of the leaders of the larger church groups so that they could warn their people. For that reason, in 2004, Mr. Dennis Fischer, co-author of the book, sent over twenty books to the primary leaders in the various Churches. Accompanying the book was a letter asking these individuals to read the material and consider the need for us to honor God's Sabbath more fully. It was the hope of both authors that these leaders would pick up the baton and cry aloud and warn their supporters of this wrong.

We regret that at this time this has not occurred as hoped. In fact, some of these leaders have taken and even harsher stand against us and even their own members regarding this issue. Instead of assuming the approach the apostle Paul taught in which he would not eat meat or drink wine if it offended one of the brethren, modern day leaders are mocking, ridiculing, and sometimes casting people out of the church for not submitting to their current practice of dining out on the Sabbath (Romans 14:21; Matthew 24:48-49).

Even in the light of this current response, it is still our hope that the recognized leaders within the church will repent as all of us have been required to do regarding this sin. It is our desire that they who are more qualified, or in a better position to do so, will take the lead in this needed reform in God's Church. Until that time, it is our belief that individual members should not leave their affiliation. We believe that they should remain with their particular group, serving as an example. While all of us deplore the apparent division and social pressure this might cause. Paul explained the value of this principle to the brethren who found themselves in a similar circumstance in Corinth. Writing to them in their day, and his words echoing down to us in our time, Paul said:

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you (1Co 11:18-19).

In the apostle's time, he realized that we can't all believe the exact same thing on every issue. Further, all of us are at different levels of understanding as we grow toward the Kingdom. Therefore, we should not ever judge or condemn others, but neither should we bend or compromise because of the pressure placed on us. The truth is, we must be an example or else there will be no witness to the members and leadership of the church regarding the behavior God does approve of. The manner in which we do this is of paramount importance, however, and therefore, we should also follow the advice Paul gave to Timothy, in which he wrote:

Let no man despise thy youth; (we add, or your gender or station in the church) but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity (I Ti 4:12).

In Conclusion, we want you to understand the enormous respect that we have for all those who are willing to stand up for the truth in a balanced, loving, and Godly way. We sincerely thank you for your example and your support in this worthy cause. We also want you to realize that you are not alone. There are now hundreds upon hundreds of people just like you who have come to understand the truth on this subject and their numbers are growing daily. This is taking place due to people such as yourself who have been an instrument of God in helping our spiritual brothers and sisters see the truth. It this context, it is our desire to continue to be a resource to you and offer support in any way we are able. Please feel free to take advantage of our books, booklets, tape library, and phone hook up as we all continue on seeking the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.

Question
I am being told by my minister that the church has the power to bind and loose on this issue. They tell me that I don't understand binding and loosing. Can you help me with this matter?

Answer
A number of pastors are teaching that going out to restaurants is an administrative decision. They believe that they have the power to bind and loose on this issue. However, they cannot loose the existing law. This is a a truth spoken repeatedly in God's word. We have no power to add or to take away from God's law--not one jot or tittle. The church can make binding judgments based on and according to God's law. They cannot make judgments abrogating it. Thus we cannot bind people to breaking the fourth commandment.

When Jesus spoke of building His church and giving the keys to the kingdom and the power of binding and loosing, it is our understanding that He was referring to the power that the Pharisees had up to the time of the establishment of the church. They sat in Moses' seat. As you remember Moses sat and judged the people according to God's law. Moses never began to think to set doctrine. That can only come directly from God. He adjudicated in disputes and conflicts between brethren.

Jesus said that He would build the church and the leadership would have the power to bind and loose. Two chapters later, in Matthew 18, Jesus gave an example of what He meant. He showed that when there is a conflict that we are to go to that person alone. That failing we are to take witnesses who were privy to what happened. If that failed then we are to take it to the church. The church then has the power to judge the issue and their judgment is then binding in heaven.

But if he will not hear thee, then take with thee one or two more, that in the mouth of two or three witnesses every word may be established. Mat 18:17 And if he shall neglect to hear them, tell it unto the church: but if he neglect to hear the church, let him be unto thee as an heathen man and a publican. Mat 18:18 Verily I say unto you, Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven: and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. Mat 18:19 Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven. Mat 18:20 For where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them (Mat 18:16).

However, this judgment must be by two or more. That is why it says when two or more of you are gathered together in my name--which is to say--gathered for the purpose of making an official judgment. Then He will be in the midst. He will inspire the judgment. A pastor must not and cannot make a decision in such cases without a hearing, witnesses telling their side of the story, and with he and at least one other member of the leadership being in agreement. Of course,those making the judgment must not have a vested interest in the conclusion.

An example of this playing out in reality is found in the case of Acts 15. There were friends of James who came from Jerusalem and they visited the churches teaching that a gentile had to be circumcised in order to become a Christian. In Antioch, they had influenced the church to such a degree that the entire church was affected. When Paul saw what was going on, He called Peter on it in front of everyone.

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved. When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, (Act 15:1-2)

But when Peter was come to Antioch, I withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed. For before that certain came from James, he did eat with the Gentiles: but when they were come, he withdrew and separated himself, fearing them which were of the circumcision. And the other Jews dissembled likewise with him; insomuch that Barnabas also was carried away with their dissimulation (Gal 2:11-13).

There was conflict over this issue that was hurting brethren. It could not be resolved among the brethren there and the witnesses to the circumstance. Thus, they took it to the church, and they sent the witnesses as representatives to Jerusalem with Peter and Paul.

. . . they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question (Acts 15:2).

There the witnesses testified and the church argued the question openly. Convicted, Peter rose and testified that actually God had revealed the truth to him earlier in the vision of the animals. Scripture was quoted that supported the decision and James, the one from whom the false teachers came, was the logical one to second the decision. Thus two or more made the decision, the result was binding, and it pleased the entire church because Jesus was in the decision.

And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them. But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses. And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter. And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe (Acts 15:4-7).

James seconded the judgment, and it pleased everyone. They sent the letter hand delivered by Paul back to Antioch where the conflict first came to a head.

Then pleased it the apostles and elders, with the whole church, to send chosen men of their own company to Antioch with Paul and Barnabas; namely, Judas surnamed Barsabas, and Silas, chief men among the brethren: And they wrote letters by them after this manner; The apostles and elders and brethren send greeting unto the brethren which are of the Gentiles in Antioch and Syria and Ciliciam (Acts 15:22-23).

This is where the problem lies to day. For example, one evangelist has stated that he put this before the entire council of elders and they all decided unanimously in favor of being able to do business on the Sabbath when it came to dining out at restaurants. But notice the problem. The council did not openly present the opposing side. They did not bring in witnesses such as authors of The Sabbath Test, Mr. Fischer or Mr. Braidic, to defend the position supported by Nehemiah. There were no witnesses.

If the church as a whole would hold a conference like that in Acts 15 and really listen to advocates for both sides of this issue, then they could fulfill Christ's criteria. Then what they bound and loosed would be binding in heaven. It would be inspired by Jesus Christ and it would be the truth.

Today, ministers are exercising authority that they do not really have. Like the last era of the Old Covenant that existed before Christ's first coming--the Pharisees, the church at the end of the age, before His second coming, also puts tradition before the commandment.

Question
Recently, on another church web site, I read an accusation implying that the authors of A Sabbath Test had plagiarized material from another source. Is that true?

Answer
This is not true and in fact one of the authors of A Sabbath Test is indeed the original author of the material in question. We are familiar with the web site that makes this implication and in their attack on A Sabbath Test, they write:

The book, A Sabbath Test, was clearly an expansion of the existing article cited earlier, “Should Christians Frequent Restaurants on the Sabbath?” The book offered no credit to the 14-page article as a forerunner in this school of thought, although both publications were equivalent in substance—using a loose interpretation of “substance.” It appears that the writers of the book sensed that a movement was beginning in the splinters without a spearhead. Hence, it appears that these followers aspired to the lucrative position of quasi-leaders of this trend, by virtue of offering a much bigger publication expounding their idea. Since they so obviously desire to lead this movement, one must ask, are they “teaching things they ought not for filthy lucre’s sake” (Tit. 1:11), and thus “making merchandise of” (II Pet. 2:3) unsuspecting brethren? http://www.thercg.org/articles/doots.html

Did the authors of Sabbath Test take the material from a prior work entitled, Should Christians Frequent Restaurants on the Sabbath? Did they not give credit to its author? Did they sense a movement growing and capitalize on it for their own financial benefit as the authors of the above article accuse?

Some of the material in A Sabbath Test did come directly from the very source they quote, but ironically, this source was an article originally authored by Mr. Art Braidic and published by someone else on their web site. The story is an interesting one.

In the early 90's, upon request, Mr. Braidic, presented a paper entitled Should Christians Frequent Restaurants on the Sabbath to the doctrinal committee of one of the larger churches. At that time, the presiding evangelist elected to table the issue, promising that it would be re-examined the following year. Nothing was ever done about the paper or the issue. A few years later, Mr. Braidic received an email asking if he had any information on this subject. He then sent the information to the individual who requested, and that person made a few changes, posting the same fundamental biblical points in an article on his web site. This we applaud, and wish that Mr. Pack and the Restored Church of God would do the same.

Later, when the Eternal Church of God was formed, Mr. Braidic published this same material in the larger expanded version available today. Mr. Dennis Fischer edited the book, changed the title, and added the second half which deals with the arguments some have regarding this subject.

Thus the authors of A Sabbath Test did take the material from the article Should Christians Frequent Restaurants on the Sabbath. However---it was their own article--not someone else's.

What about the accusation of the authors of A Sabbath Test trying to make merchandise of the brethren by using this book and its teaching? Consider the following letter from the Eternal Church of God answering a question which plainly reveals the authors intentions.

Question
What should I do when my church teaches members to sin by doing business on the Sabbath.

Answer
When brethren are attending with a group that believes in and practices dining out on the Sabbath, there can be great pressure brought to bear on individuals to fit in, be accepted, and even compromise their beliefs. Therefore, we believe that this issue is a test for the people of God who are living in this end time. We do not advise leaving your current fellowship to relieve the pressure, however. Instead, we recommend that without acting self righteous or superior that brethren stay within their congregation, and there humbly serve and love God's children while holding firm and being an example for others by discussing the subject only when asked, or when it is appropriate (2 Peter 3:15).

The Eternal Church of God did not produce A Sabbath Test in an attempt to draw away members from other churches. The authors decided to publish the book because the larger churches were not addressing the subject, and this spiritually dangerous practice of doing business on the Sabbath was becoming more and more common place within the church as the scattering caused members to travel greater distances to services.

We regret that at this time, this has not occurred as hoped. In fact, some of these leaders have taken and even harsher stand against their own members because of their faith regarding this issue. Instead of assuming the approach the apostle Paul taught in which he would not eat meat or drink wine if it offended one of the brethren, modern day leaders are mocking, ridiculing, and sometimes casting people out of the church for not submitting to their current practice of dining out on the Sabbath (Romans 14:21; Matthew 24:48-49).

Even in the light of this current response, it is still our hope that the recognized leaders within the church will repent as all of us have been required to do regarding this sin. It is our desire that they who are more qualified, or in a better position to do so, will take the lead in this needed reform in God's Church. Until that time, it is our belief that individual members should not leave their affiliation. We believe that they should remain with their particular group, serving as an example. While all of us deplore the apparent division and social pressure this might cause, Paul explained the value of this principle to the brethren who found themselves in a similar circumstance in Corinth. Writing to them in their day, and his words echoing down to us in our time, Paul said:

For first of all, when ye come together in the church, I hear that divisions exist among you; and I partly believe it. For there must be also factions among you, that they that are approved may be made manifest among you (1Co 11:18-19).

In the apostle's time, he realized that we can't all believe the exact same thing on every issue. Further, all of us are at different levels of understanding as we grow toward the Kingdom. Therefore, we should never judge or condemn others, but neither should we bend or compromise because of the pressure placed on us. The truth is, we must be an example, or else there will be no witness to the members and leadership of the church regarding the behavior God does approve of. The manner in which we do this is of paramount importance, however, and therefore, we should also follow the advice Paul gave to Timothy, in which he wrote:

Let no man despise thy youth; (we add, or your gender or station in the church) but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity (1Ti 4:12).

Finally, if anyone has any other questions about the Article written by the Restored Church of God, and its attacks on the principles addressed in A Sabbath Test, we would direct you to Blow the Trumpet where Mr. Fischer's has posted answers to every argument. Simply click on the following link blowthetrumpet.org/DavidC.PackvsTheSabbathTest.htm

Question
Some who advocate eating at restaurants on the Sabbath claim that Jesus gave them permission to do so when He said that the Sabbath was made for man in Mark 2:27.

Answer
The Eternal Church of God agrees with, and seeks to submit to the words of Christ. The Sabbath was made for man. Therefore, we are not to put artificial man made restrictive burdens on God's holy day. Thus, it would not be wrong to pick an apple or orange off a tree and eat it on the Sabbath. God's commandments permit such activity. Having been made for man, the Sabbath allows us to do acts of healing, good works and acts of sacrifice for others. However, God's Word makes it clear that the Sabbath was not made for man to break at his will! It was not made for us to use for our own personal pleasure. No matter how much a person might try to justify their actions, doing business on the Sabbath is not sacrificing for others. It is not doing good works. It is blatantly breaking the fourth command.

Question
Some have said that I am weak in the faith for refusing to dine out on the Sabbath. What do you think? Is refusing to dine out on the Sabbath weak in the faith?

Answer
Those who have read the fourth commandment and the injunction not to buy or sell on the Sabbath, and still continue to do business on the Sabbath, they are the ones who are weak in the faith. Those who refuse to do business on the Sabbath in spite of pressure and accusations such as you have experienced are actually the strong ones. While you are striving to follow the Scriptures, those who continue to do business on the Sabbath, having no Scriptural support for their argument, resort to accusations, a kind of name calling and intimidation.

We ask everyone to consider both the truth regarding Paul's teaching regarding brethren who are weak in the faith, and what that teaching implies for us today. First of all your antagonists have misapplied Paul's teaching. When the apostle spoke about this subject he did not consider those who were striving to keep the commandments to be weak in the faith. He was speaking about individuals who thought it it might offend God to eat meat or to drink wine. These were people who at one time or another had become infected with the Gnostic doctrine of asceticism. Paul spoke of such cases when he wrote:

Wherefore if ye be dead with Christ from the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in the world, are ye subject to ordinances, Touch not; taste not; handle not; which all are to perish with the using;) after the commandments and doctrines of men? Which things have indeed a shew of wisdom in will worship, and humility, and neglecting of the body; not in any honour to the satisfying of the flesh (Col 2:20-23).

Thus it is clear that keeping the commandments by not doing business on the Sabbath or the holy days is not being weak in the faith. Being weak in the faith in Paul's eyes was not being able to let go of previous wrong religious views that the Gnostics held. What your antagonists do not realize is that they are the exact ones Paul refers to. They hold the Gnostic teaching that they can break God's law and it does not matter because they have knowledge and love in their heart. To these Paul writes:

What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? (Rom 6:1-2)

Thus it is clear that what they accuse you of is what they are guilty of. Regarding what Paul's teaching truly implies we find an even greater ironic twist. The apostle said if a believer was weak and did not eat meat, that he would also eat no meat. He also stated that if a believer was weak in the faith, and would not drink wine, then he would drink no wine (I Corinthians 8:13). Therefore, applying Paul's teaching to brethren who wish to avoid frequenting restaurants on the Sabbath, his instruction to those believing we are weak in the faith is that they should never condemn others for not eating out. Instead, your accusers, should follow the example of Paul. They should NOT frequent restaurants for the sake of those who they believe are weaker brethren.

Question
Those who wish to dine out on the Sabbath often state that the fellowship they enjoy at restaurants is important. They say that they are building relationships by spending more time together. Does this validate eating out on the Sabbath?

Answer
When we go out into the commercial world of entertainment, by dining out on at a restaurant on the Sabbath, we are not spending more time together. We are not spending more time with Jesus Christ and God the Father. We are spending more time being a part of this world.

Our fellowship is to first be with Jesus Christ and with the Father and they are not in the restaurant. They are not in the busy kitchen, they are not in the steaming machinery of the dishwasher, they are not in the spirit and mind of the bus boy, they are not in the cash register and they are not in the minds of the employees working there that day.

When we dine at a restaurant on the Sabbath, in a sense, we actually leave the camp of believers and go into the camp of the ungodly to do our business. For example, in the restaurant the conversation permeating the environment is often secular and carnal. There are many times more than one TV set going and it is loud. There are often people flirting with one another. There is generally loud music which is some times punctuated by the waiters and waitresses noisily singing happy birthday to a customer.

This certainly is not keeping the Sabbath holy. Holy is a word meaning different, set aside, sanctified and pure. The Sabbath is to be set aside for holy use. It is a day of rest where we stop doing the things of and in the world. It must be different and pure and there is nothing pure about the activities that go on in a restaurant on the Sabbath. The behaviors, values and standards there are the same Sunday through Saturday. Restaurants exist to serve up secular fare to paying customers. When we go there, our fellowship is there.

The point that those who frequent restaurants on the Sabbath usually try to make is that somehow the restaurant is different from other forms of commercial entertainment. To them, it has redeeming value. They usually explain this in the following way. "God wants us to have fellowship with one another and since the Sabbath is one of the feasts of God He allows us to do this." In their mind, the restaurant facilitates these things and therefore to them, dining on the Sabbath is a good thing.

Nothing could be further from the truth however. We absolutely do not have Sabbath day fellowship with one another when we go to a restaurant on the Sabbath. We have a good time with friends. We are entertained and waited on. It is enjoyable and that is why so many restaurants exist. They DO NOT exist for Christians to have fellowship with one another. They exist for our carnal pleasure and for the purpose of making money.

By the restaurant being open for business, the employees working, and making use of a commercial fire, those who work in or dine in restaurants on the Sabbath are sinning. Therefore, by joining with those in the restaurant, we don’t really have fellowship with one another we are actually taken out of fellowship with God. When we go into the commercial entertainment world we become connected with them in what they do, and therefore we have fellowship with the world. As Paul writes:

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? (2Co 6:14)

True Christian fellowship is a relationship in which we, as God’s children, share the same goals, destiny, hopes and dreams with one another that Christ has for us. When we do business on the Sabbath, in part, we abandon His goals and laws and we lose fellowship with Him. Hence we lose real Christian fellowship with one another. We become no different than those people in the restaurant who are estranged from God. In this context, Paul writes that we must not share the fellowship we have with one another with those who reject God and His law. The apostle begins by stating:

For the fruit of the Spirit is in all goodness and righteousness and truth (Eph 5:9).

Righteousness is the keeping of God’s commandments. That means the spirit of God should be leading us to keep the Sabbath better not justify our disobedience. As Paul continues to state, we are to be:

Proving what is acceptable unto the Lord. And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them (Eph 5:10-11).

By this verse alone we should not attempt to have fellowship with those who are sinning by working in a restaurant on the Sabbath. Neither should we have fellowship with those who are doing business in the restaurant while they are there, brethren or not. As the apostle Christ loved said:

That which we have seen and heard declare we unto you, that ye also may have fellowship with us: and truly our fellowship is with the Father, and with his Son Jesus Christ. And these things write we unto you, that your joy may be full. This then is the message which we have heard of him, and declare unto you, that God is light, and in him is no darkness at all. If we say that we have fellowship with him, and walk in darkness, we lie, and do not the truth (Jo 1:3-7).

If we deliberately disobey the commandments, we do not abide in Christ’s love (John 15:10), we do not have fellowship with Him and to say that we do is lying. Only if we walk in the light of His law do we have fellowship with Him. John continues saying:

But if we walk in the light, as he is in the light, we have fellowship one with another, and the blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth us from all sin (1Jo 1:7).

In regards to the subject we are discussing, the only way to walk in the light of His law is to not do business on the Sabbath. Even if others think we are spoiling their fun we don’t do it. We may seem to lose some of our fellowship with them, but we retain our fellowship with Christ and with all those who truly want to obey God.

In this context the apostle John addresses the old tired worn out Gnostic teaching that if we love God, then it doesn’t matter what we actually do. The Gnostics believed that as long as they had the truth, the knowledge of God in their hearts and minds, then sin was not imputed to them. John spent most of the latter decades of his life combating this heresy and after explaining about the importance of maintaining our fellowship with Christ by obeying God’s law, he wrote:

If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us (1Jo 1:8-10).

If we confess our sins, He is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness. If we say that we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.

This is the main failure of those who advocate going to restaurants on the Sabbath. They will admit that they should not have fellowship with those in the world on the Sabbath. They will admit that those in the restaurant are sinning, but they will not admit that by going to the restaurant and doing business on the Sabbath that they are sinning! This is the very same Gnostic argument that the apostle John powerfully refutes. He shouts that we do sin when we do business on the Sabbath and our fellowship is not with Christ and the Father. It is with this world.

If we are to have true Christian fellowship we should have nothing to do with spending money and making others work. God's children should feast together, but not by doing business in a commercial establishment. This approach is analogous to believers stating, “God wants us to feast, so, lets go to the temple of Diana, or better yet, in this case, the temple of Mammon, and eat there. I hear that they have good food.”

We ask that you sincerely consider this. If we can go to the restaurant which is forbidden to do on the Sabbath, why not just go to the local Catholic church potluck? There is no real difference. If you think there is, think again. The difference is really only semantic. The secular world worships the devil in the form of Mammon. The religious world worships the devil in the form of Tammuz or Baal. We must not join in any of their abominations.

We absolutely should have our "love feasts" on the Sabbath, but we should not go outside the camp. The fellowship of believers is to be found in our own assemblies, and not in the world.

Further, we find it ironic that those who advocate eating out at restaurants on the Sabbath also justify doing so stating something like "it bears good fruit" when just the opposite is true. As a result of this attitude, God's people have become very liberal with the Sabbath and many brethren are now pushing the envelope even further. Now, they are beginning to think that they can do other kinds of business on the Sabbath. We are hearing reports of some going to the theatre during the Sabbath, and others who think that it is not wrong to shop for personal effects on the Sabbath day. Some of God's people are no longer buying gas before the Sabbath, but are simply filling up on the way to church services.

Why is this happening? The answer is clear. By going out to eat at restaurants we are losing our fellowship with Christ and the Father. We are growing in fellowship with the world and as a result we are acting more and more like the world does. We do the things they do and our conscience is no longer pricked by it.

We must not compromise on this issue. We must not fellowship in restaurants on the Sabbath. Instead we should make every effort to keep the brethren together, out of the world and walking in the light of God’s law on His holy day.

Question
Isn't the book of Nehemiah simply an account of history and not to be taken in the same that we do the other books of the Bible?

Answer
One of the largest Churches of God has made an official statement regarding the injunction in Nehemiah that we are not to buy or sell on the Sabbath and holy days. This statement insinuates that the proclamations of Nehemiah are simply a recording of history and not to be taken as examples for us to follow. While some might believe that Nehemiah is only a history book, and others think that we should not read too much into it, we greatly object.

The entire Bible is a history book. In fact, it is His Story--the story of Jesus Christ. The Bible is literally Him in print, and we should never denigrate a single part of it. Jesus said that we are to live by every word of God and not one grammatical mark will fail until the new heavens and earth. Thus, our Savior clearly stated that we are to live by the words of Genesis through Revelation, every word, and this includes the words written in the book of Nehemiah. The apostle Paul also stated that all scripture is inspired by God and profitable for doctrine, reproof, correction, and instruction in righteousness (2 Tim 3:16). He did not say some or most scripture, but ALL scripture.

The history written by Nehemiah was established in the Bible for an enormously important reason. In fact, so vital are the words in those books that men and women of God died striving to preserve them so that we would have them in our day. The history found in Nehemiah, and elsewhere, is there to serve as an example for us who would live at the end time. As the apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthian brethren:

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted. Neither be ye idolaters, as were some of them; as it is written, The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play (1Co 10:6-7).

Paul’s admonition to the brethren in Corinth was that those things that happened to ancient Israel, historically, were actually recorded for us. In fact, we ask readers to reread those verses above. They could easily be written directly to those of us who want to eat and drink and socialize at restaurants on God's holy day in our age.

The great apostle to the Gentiles reiterated this truth in following verses. Here he also writes:

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come. Wherefore let him that thinketh he standeth take heed lest he fall (1Co 10:11-12).

We can thank God that there is this example for us. Their example is one of disobedience to God which resulted in captivity. We are those who are living at the end of the age and the main reason that the Eternal Church of God published and advertise this truth among the various churches of God is because Nehemiah clearly stated that buying and selling on the Sabbath was the very reason that God's people had gone into captivity. The last era of God’s church, those upon whom the ends of the age will come, will also go into captivity. Is there a connection? Could it be that some of God's people will go into captivity at the end of the age for this same reason?

In this context, we can recall other words from the past which state, "Those who do not learn the lesson of history are doomed to repeat it." We believe that the verses in Nehemiah were recorded as a warning for all of God's people.

Question
What about people who cannot drive, or do not have cars and must use public transportation to attend services?

Answer
If people must use public transportation, they can usually purchase a pass so that they are not doing business on the Sabbath. There is no question that this would be within the law. The busses will be traveling on the Sabbath whether we are riding on them or not. No one is doing any extra work by riding the bus. This is not like a chef preparing a meal specifically for us. It is not like a waiter serving us for a tip. If the pass is purchased in advance, it is a proper application of the preparation day. Thus, riders are not conducting business in order use public transportation. Riding in a vehicle that is going in the direction that we desire to go is not an issue. It is no different than purchasing gas for a car during the week, and them driving us to services on the Sabbath. It is paid for in advance and the Sabbath keeper is simply along for the ride. The real issue is doing business on the Sabbath.

In that light, if if is impossible to purchase such a pass in advance, and distance is such an issue with the brethren in a particular area, why doesn't the church leadership provide some sort of transportation so that the Sabbath can be kept by members properly? Why not take up an offering or use the tithes to buy a vehicle?

Consider yet another point. If some people are so far away from the hall that it is actually work for them to get to services, or if they must do business in order to attend, why not have services locally? Ministers should train and ordain elders in more remote areas to attend to the brethren's needs, including having Sabbath services. Paul gave us an example of this in his letter to Titus.

For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou shouldest set in order the things that are wanting, and in every city, as I had appointed thee (Titus 1:5).

We see no evidence in the Bible, nor do we believe that the apostle Paul expected people to purchase public transporation in order to get to services. In that context, as we live in our modern technological world, we ask people to personally evaluate these things in the light of the scriptures. The commandment is clearly to rest. The commandment also forbids us to work or cause others to work for us. As God says:

Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days shalt thou labour, and do all thy work: But the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God: in it thou shalt not do any work, thou, nor thy son, nor thy daughter, thy manservant, nor thy maidservant, nor thy cattle, nor thy stranger that is within thy gates. . . (Exodus 20:8).

What is dissappointing is that the churches have seemingly turned this command completely around. They treat the Sabbath as though the commandment actually states that members are to attend services no matter the cost in their personal labor, or the cost involved in doing business on that day. To them the issue is attending their services. We ask the churches in areas where this might be an issue to repent. Do whatever is necessary to put God first and to keep His Sabbath Holy according to His commandment.