Just as going from wood heating to paying for electric on the first day of the week enables a better personal and societal keeping of the Lord’s Day, due to a dedicated minority more efficiently providing a greater, necessary benefit for all, so the use of profitable, suitable restaurants on the Lord’s Day may contribute to the same, creating less work for all.

Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth,
having put on the breastplate of righteousness…
Ephesians 6:14

Intro: Wood vs. Electric Heating

You live in the cold Northeast of America and still heat your old, leaky house with a wood stove due to the cost of heating. On the Lord’s Day it takes time and work for you to feed logs into the fire and tend it throughout the day. Keeping the stove going is not a matter of life or death, but maintaining a pleasant temperature does take extra toil than doing the minimal to get by.

Your income increases; you decide to upgrade to electric heating. Now you do less work on the Lord’s Day and instead pay the electrical plant’s employees for comfortably heating your house on the first day of the week.

There was a time when everyone used wood heating. A lot of time and work was devoted to this. In transitioning to power plants, the whole community is able to do a lot less work on the Lord’s Day by delegating relatively few employees at the plant to do the work for all more efficiently. For this greater good in keeping the Lord’s Day better, it is only necessary to pay the employees for their labor, such payment not being something specifically religious, but a circumstance common to human actions and societies as ordered by nature’s light, Christian prudence and the general rules of the Word.¹

¹ This is the language of Westminster Confession of Faith 1.6, which will be further expounded below.

If everyone in America did their own wood heating on the Lord’s Day it would involve exponentially more work than for a dedicated few at power plants to do it. Likewise, if every American made and cleaned up their own meals, it would involve much greater work on the Lord’s Day than eating at restaurants.

The very economic foundation of businesses is providing a service more efficiently (i.e. with less work) and (usually) better than the patron. Profitability normally measures the degree at which a business is operating more productively, advantageously and efficiently¹ than what it would take for the patrons to do the same. If one objects to paying for others’ more efficient labor for necessary and prudent things on the Lord’s Day, one can always go back to heating with wood and turning off the air conditioning and electricity every first day of the week.

¹ Taking into account operating costs and risks, expertise, the benefits of location, convenience, safety, atmosphere, social experience, dependability, etc.

Defining the Question

On any view of the Sabbath, or Lord’s Day, even the most outwardly rigorous, it is maintained that eating at a restaurant may be moral; and this not only under great necessity, but regularly. The main argument has been given; what remains is only to fill out the more pertinent details and answer objections for the sake of satisfying consciences and understanding God’s Word better. To define the question more closely:

Westminster

1. Let Westminster Confession (WCF) 21.8 be granted, that:

“This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs beforehand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts, about their worldly employments and recreations (Ex 20:8; 16:23, 25-26, 29-30; 31:15-17; Isa 58:13; Neh 13:15-22); but also are taken up the whole time in the public and private exercises of his worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Isa 58:13; Mat 12:1-13)”

2. Let the rest of the teachings of the Westminster standards be granted as well, such as the Larger Catechism (WLC) on the 4th Commandment (#115-21) and other ethically relevant sections (such as #99).
3. The Westminster standards nowhere explicitly forbid eating at restaurants on the Lord’s Day; thus if the practice is consistent with the principles elucidated therein, the issue is not a confessional one, but there is breadth for it.
4. It is maintained eating at a restaurant on the first day may fall under “duties of necessity,” in reducing personal and overall work-load. It is not being argued eating at restaurants apart from necessity is right, but that so eating may involve a relevant, morally obliging degree of necessity so one may better keep the Lord’s Day holy unto the Lord.

Zeal, Spirituality & Abuse

5. The issue is not about zeal, whether one would be willing to abstain from restaurants if God said to, but about zeal with knowledge (Rom. 10:2). I abstained from eating at restaurants on the Lord’s Day on principle for around 20 years, till greater light came in God’s mercy. Everyone should be willing to do anything God says. Would you be willing to eat at a restaurant on the Lord’s Day if it is God’s will for you to do so?
6. The issue is not spirituality. Surely there could be some public eating place requiring financial recompense where due spirituality could be maintained. Jesus attended a feast on the Sabbath, apparently attended by many unconverted people, whom He did not blame for not spending their time otherwise (Lk. 14).
7. The issue is not how others, or the culture, etc. may abuse restaurants on the first day, especially when there may be a degree of necessity to their use.

Particulars about Restaurants

8. The issue is not if any particular or kind of restaurant is fitting or convenient for keeping the Lord’s Day (some most certainly are not), but only that a restaurant in principle could be.
9. The issue is not whether one must eat at restaurants on the first day, as there are so many particular, individualized factors which may make it more profitable for persons not to eat at them at times. The issue is Christian liberty, to use things profitably which are not disallowed.
10. The issue is not public policy per se, if such restaurants became more ill-used and scandalous than the good they do, whether a community ought to close them on the first day of the week. Rather, the issue is whether a restaurant can be so privately and lawfully used, in any possible circumstances, for our benefit and God’s glory.

Three main objections to eating at restaurants on the Lord’s Day are: (1) Preparing meals the day before may be more efficient, making restaurants unnecessary, (2) Eating at restaurants causes others to work and break the Lord’s Day, and (3) Commercial transactions are prohibited on the Sabbath (Neh. 13:15-22).

After the nature of the Lord’s Day and necessity is discussed, these three objections will be solved. Then the ethics of Christians working in restaurants on the first day will be taken up, along with the issue of restaurants failing to make a profit thereon. The last section, before closing, touches on the historical question in Reformed theology’s classical era, showing that the allowance of restaurants’ use on the Lord’s Day was within the original, historic intention of the Westminster standards, and likewise was not prohibited by the influential Dutch Reformed, puritan theologian, Gisbert Voet (d. 1676) in his disputations on the Sabbath. Rather, principles Voet convincingly demonstrates support a large share of this article.

Nature of the Lord’s Day & Necessity

The Lord’s Day is not a purely natural and moral obligation, like not murdering, so far as a special day for God’s worship has changed before (from the seventh to the first day, Gen. 2:3; Ex. 20:8-11; Jn. 20:19; Acts 20:7; 1 Cor. 16:2) and as the Lord Jesus teaches exceptions to the Sabbath (Mt. 12:3-5, 11-12; Lk. 14:5; Jn. 5:16-17; 7:22-23). Rather, the Lord’s Day is partly positive, meaning that it has been imposed from above nature’s light by God’s mere positive choice and authority,¹ while being founded on a natural good.

¹ For more help in understanding positive laws, see the ‘Intro’ at ‘On Positive Laws & Ordinances…’ and ‘That the Sabbath is Partly Moral & Partly Positive’ at ‘The Lord’s Day’.

So WCF 21.7 says in the context of the Lord’s Day, on the one hand, “it is of the law of nature that, in general, a due proportion of time be set apart for the worship of God.” On the other hand, regarding the day’s positive aspect, it says, “by a positive, moral, and perpetual commandment… He has particularly appointed one day in seven for a Sabbath: which… was the last day of the week, and… was changed into the first day of the week…”

When natural, moral necessity conflicts with the positive, instituted aspect of the Lord’s Day, the naturally good, moral necessity must be done,¹ as Jesus taught (Mt. 12:3-5, 11-12; Lk. 14:5; Jn. 5:16-17; 7:22-23). Such binding necessity may extend to something as small in kind and degree² as relieving hunger, or bodily discomfort (Mt. 12:1-4), as the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath (Mk. 2:27).

¹ See ‘Natural Law, in Necessity, Over-Rules Positive Law when They Conflict’ at ‘On Positive Laws & Ordinances…’

² See the puritans teach and apply this at ‘What Constitutes Necessity?’ at ‘On Works of Necessity & Mercy on the Sabbath’.

It is hence clear eating three meals a day, while not a matter of life and death, yet falls under “duties of necessity”. Eating must be done every day, yet this is not the case with shopping, doing errands, buying groceries, filling one’s vehicle up with gas, etc. Hence the principles expounded in this article do not necessarily extend to those activities.

Preparing Comfortable Food

The first main objection is: Preparation for the Lord’s Day is obliging and preparing food the night before may be more efficient and makes the labor of preparing meals (whether by individuals or restaurants) on the first day unnecessary, given God’s commands to the Israelites in the wilderness to cook a double portion of manna on the sixth day in preparation for the seventh (Ex. 16:5, 22, 29) and not to kindle a fire on the Sabbath (Ex. 35:3).

What Westminster says on the topic of preparation for the Lord’s Day is affirmed (WLC 117):

“The… Lord’s day is to be sanctified… to that end, we are to prepare our hearts, and with such foresight, diligence, and moderation, to dispose, and seasonably to dispatch our worldly business, that we may be the more free and fit for the duties of that day. (Ex. 20:8; Lk. 23:54, 56; Ex. 16:22, 25, 26, 29; Neh. 13:19)”

However, the specifics of these wilderness commands were rightly commonly seen by the English puritans to be positive in nature and unique to the Israelite’s circumstances and tutorship in the wilderness. See their reasons.¹

¹ Especially those of John White, a Westminster divine: ‘That Moderately Preparing & Cooking Food, & holding or attending Feasts, with Rejoicing, is Lawful on the Lord’s Day’ at ‘What does Keeping the Lord’s Day Entail?’.

Be it noted Ex. 35:3 only speaks of “kindling” a fire, which can take a bit of work (including going out to gather sticks, Num. 15:32-36). It does not prohibit keeping a fire going when the Israelites would be in more permanent circumstances in the land of Israel (especially in the cold); and hence it does not prohibit having warm food on the Sabbath, especially if such work in making a fire need not be involved (as with modern stoves). Ex. 12:16 speaks of when the Israelites would no longer be in the wilderness, but in their own land. It says on the first and last holy days of the Feast of Unleavened Bread:

“No manner of work shall be done on them; but that which everyone must eat—that only may be prepared by you [ה֥וּא לְבַדּ֖וֹ יֵעָשֶׂ֥ה לָכֶֽם].”

Hence meal preparation was allowed on these holy days.

As our Savior says leading an animal to water might be done on the Sabbath (Lk. 13:16), though persons could have ran buckets of water to the animal’s stall the night before in greater preparation, it shows not all possible preparation must be done the night before. John White, a Westminster divine, argued that such prepared water would satisfy and comfort an animal more than persons with food prepared the night before; and that such bodily comforts were a degree of lawful necessity on the Lord’s Day.¹

¹ See ‘That Moderately Preparing & Cooking Food, & holding or attending Feasts, with Rejoicing, is Lawful on the Lord’s Day’ with Edward Leigh under the same section, and the many puritans on the topic of lawful ‘Bodily Refreshment on the Lord’s Day’ at ‘Recreation on the Lord’s Day’.

The English puritan Edward Leigh rightly derived from Christ attending a feast on the Sabbath (Lk. 14:1, 8, 12, 17) that it is lawful “to dress meat and drink on the Lord’s day, for a feast sure was not kept without some preparation of warm meat.”¹ This feast’s description, and those Jesus approvingly speaks of, clearly had many invited guests, which would have entailed a significant amount of meal preparation on the Sabbath Day. Whether the free-men or servants doing the work were paid or not (any servant, even slaves, are recompensed in some measure for their entailed weekly work), they had been delegated to work for the benefit of the many.

¹ System or Body of Divinity (1654), bk. 9, ch. 5, 4th Commandment, p. 818 For Jewish evidence of this, see John Lightfoot, A Commentary on the New Testament from the Talmud and Hebraica (1859; Hendrickson, 1997), vol. 3, on Lk. 14, verse 1, pp. 149-50

Special, Delightful Food

It may yet be objected: Restaurants regularly make food more delicious, with extra work, than is needful. Yet God commanded the people in Dt. 14:26 to eat special and fine meats and drinks, whatever they desired, so that they may rejoice all the more on a given holy day:

“And you shall spend that money for whatever your heart desires: for oxen or sheep, for wine or similar drink, for whatever your heart desires; you shall eat there before the Lord your God, and you shall rejoice, you and your household.”

Hence it was not novel when Ezra later told God’s people on a holy day:

“eat the fat, drink the sweet, and send portions to those for whom nothing is prepared; for this day is holy to our Lord. Do not sorrow, for the joy of the Lord is your strength.” (Ezra 8:10)

Note the consistency of special, pleasurable foods with joying in the Lord. It is not likely the people being sent gifts had nothing to eat, as they had as much common foresight as any; rather, the preparing of meal-portions here mentioned seems to be that of the specified delicacies.

The English puritans (including at least four of the Westminster divines: Walker, Palmer, White, Young) regularly taught that moderate, refreshing, bodily comforts may be a necessity on the Lord’s Day.¹

¹ See ‘Bodily Refreshment on the Lord’s Day’ at ‘Recreation on the Lord’s Day’.

All this is in contrast to the punishment upon God’s people Hosea describes: “their sacrifices shall be unto them as the bread of mourners…” (Hos. 9:4) when God “will also cause all her mirth to cease, her feast days, her new moons, and her sabbaths, and all her solemn feasts.” (Hos. 2:11)

After all this one might say: “Yet I still find it more efficient, convenient and profitable to prepare food the night before (say in a crockpot), and thus no one needs to work for me on the Lord’s Day. The same goes for having a potluck at church.” While this is well and good for persons in their particular circumstances, yet if it is not so convenient, or it be held out as an exclusive rule, beware of being more holy than God. The rule some set, to only have meals which require as little preparation as possible, is contrary to the Biblical evidence throughout this article.

Necessary Means

Lawful, necessary ends justify using lawful, necessary means to those ends (Neh. 8:10-12; Mt. 13:45-46; Lk. 13:15; 14:21-23). Hence, if it is right for a person to make a scrumptious meal on the Lord’s Day, but this can be done more efficiently by another person or persons’ labor, it is lawful for that labor to be done for oneself and others.

While the second main objection will be seen to be very distorted, let it be answered:

“Yet it is not right to break the Lord’s Day, by working or having another work for you, in order to keep the day more fully. One ought not to do evil that good may come of it (Rom. 3:8; 6:1).”

Such is also a main line of reasoning for those who teach it is wrong to use great extents, or to use someone else’s working (such as with public transportation), to attend God’s public worship on the Lord’s Day. Yet such assumes the whole obligation of the Lord’s Day is moral in nature (on par with, say, not murdering), whereas the appointment of the first day is significantly positive in nature, as has been seen. The dominant view of the English puritans was that ‘Necessary Means, though involving Work, Commerce, etc. may be taken to Attend Public Worship’. See their further reasons and Biblical proofs.

Servants

Servants are a means to ends. The Fourth Commandment prohibits them from working in general on the Sabbath:

“In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates.” (Ex. 20:10)

Read More