My father grew up in the borough of Brooklyn, in a neighborhood just north of “Bed-Stuy” called Williamsburg. Those familiar with the neighborhood know that in the early 1900s with the completion of the bridge that bears the nabe’s name, Hasidic Jews from the “Lower east Side” began populating the community along with other immigrants like my Italian grandmother and great grandmother. Eventually, Williamsburg became the most populated neighborhood in the United States.

As a boy, my father could earn a penny on Saturdays from any number of Hasidic Jews for turning on a light in an apartment or hallway. (To put things in perspective, when my father was eight years old the Williamsburg Houses initially tenanted for just under 2 dollars per week for a single room. A busy Saturday of flipping switches could earn a day’s rent!)
Without getting into possible Jewish rationale for such a seemingly pedantic Shabbat restriction – whether it be tied to kindling a flame, creating something new, or just mere tradition – it’s not hard to discern a legalistic and hypocritical Jewish mindset.
First, let’s dispel a common sentiment. Legalism is not tied to obedience, lest Jesus was a legalistic. No, legalism pertains to trying to earn that which can only be received by grace. Legalism also pertains to finding loopholes in order to “obey” or not “disobey” by way of technicality. It is the second kind of legalism that I have in mind.
The Jews got the electricity turned on without themselves flipping the switch. How? They paid someone else to break their law for them. So, technically speaking, they didn’t break the letter of the law; they got someone else to break their law for them, hence their legalism.
The hypocrisy is due to believing they were more obedient than my father because they would never do what he had done for money. Their money!
The point is not that certain Hasidic Jews believed wrongly they may not turn on electricity on the last day of the week. In other words, whether their law was according to God’s word misses the point. The point is these Jews were all too willing to violate their own personal moral convictions by paying someone else to do what they believed was forbidden by God. I trust that’s obvious,
Now let’s play with some analogies:
I may not pray to false gods, but I may pay someone else to pray to false gods for me. As long as I don’t commit idolatry, I have not broken the moral law.
I may not murder, but I may pay someone else to murder for me. As long as I don’t pull the trigger, I have not broken the moral law.
I may not steal, but I may pay someone else to steal for me. As long as my accountant falsifies the tax forms, I have not broken the moral law.
I may not lie or deceive, but I may pay someone else to lie and deceive for me. As long as I don’t speak false words, I have not broken the moral law.
The legalistic hypocrisy is glaring. Obviously, we see the absurdity.
Now for a blind spot to something no less obvious:
Most elders in Reformed churches take exception to the Reformed view of Christian Sabbath recreation as taught in the Westminster standards. As unfortunate as that is, many among that number go even further by going to restaurants and ordering out food on Sundays, which pertains not merely to rest or recreation but to the law of God as it relates to unlawful work on the Lord’s Day.
Now for one more absurdity:
It’s neither necessary nor merciful for you to wait on me, but as long as you’re willing to do so, I’m happy to be the direct occasion for your sin, just as long as I am fed well. Although you should not wait on me, let me contribute to your temptation by paying you. That’s on you, Server. I’m not sinning, though you really should have been at church this morning rather than getting ready for work in order to serve me lunch. Now please tell the chef to hurry up with my Veal Cacciatore. I’ve got to get a nap in and be back for evening service. And, hey, don’t forget my Chianti!
Do we see that absurdity as clearly as all the others? Or is our position that on Sundays, other than performing works of necessity and mercy, I may not work but I may pay someone else to work for me. In other words, as long as I’m not the line chef, the server, the bartender or the delivery person who works Sundays, I have not broken the moral law.
Bobbin’ N Weavin’:
This is usually where people begin to ask things like, what’s the difference between cooking for yourself or family, and a restaurant doing it for you? There are easy binary considerations pertaining to commerce and what entails “going to work” but such principles are usually wasted on Pharisaical types who are straining for any loophole to justify sins of convenience.
Some things just need to be said sometimes:
Is it not incongruous, while praying over a meal at a restaurant, to give thanks to God for those who break His commandment so that we might be fed?
To cloak or defend sin by claiming liberty of conscience is not Christian but antinomian.
There’s a vast difference between exercising liberty of conscience and operating according to a seared conscience.
To be faithful in upholding the Confession that reflects biblical precepts is not legalism; nor is it to try to steal another Christian’s joy.
Let’s not deceive ourselves into thinking we have scruples against working on Sundays (other than out of necessity or mercy), if we are willing to allow others to work for us on the Lord’s Day.
Going to restaurants and ordering out food on Sundays is not analogous to hiring someone who might end up choosing to use honest pay for improper use. Rather, it’s a matter of directly paying someone to do something clearly forbidden in God’s word so that we might receive some perceived benefit and immediate gratification.
Rejoinders to common objections:
For those who have been misled by men like Lee Irons who have promulgated that unbelievers may work on Sundays, I offer this:
For those who have been misled by men like R.C. Sproul who obfuscate and engage in revisionism on this issue, I offer this:
You must be logged in to post a comment.