God cannot lie. It is against His very nature and being to lie (Numbers 23:19; Titus 1:2; Hebrews 6:18). God has told us in His Word that it is a sin to lie (Exodus 20:16). God does not tempt us to sin (James 1:13), and He does not tempt us–let alone order us–to lie. On the other hand, God sometimes uses lying people or even lying spirits or demons to carry out His purpose (compare 1 Kings 22). This does not mean that God orders anyone to lie–but since men and demons are free moral agents and may decide to sin, God may use them to accomplish a certain goal–but the decision to sin, including to lie, is still man’s or the spirit’s decision (For a better understanding, please read our free booklet, “Angels, Demons and the Spirit World,” especially pages 46-51).

How, then, are we to understand 1 Samuel 16:1-5, where God told Samuel to anoint a son of Jesse as king, but to tell the people that he came to sacrifice to God? Let us read the entire passage in context:

“Now the LORD said to Samuel, ‘How long will you mourn for Saul, seeing I have rejected him from reigning over Israel? Fill your horn with oil, and go; I am sending you to Jesse the Bethlehemite. For I have provided Myself a king among his sons.’ And Samuel said, ‘How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me?’ But the LORD said, ‘Take a heifer with you, and say, “I have come to sacrifice to the LORD.” Then invite Jesse to the sacrifice, and I will show you what you shall do; you shall anoint for Me the one I name to you.’ So Samuel did what the LORD said, and went to Bethlehem. And the elders of the town trembled at his coming, and said, ‘Do you come peaceably?’ and he said, ‘Peaceably; I have come to sacrifice to the LORD. Sanctify yourselves, and come with me to the sacrifice.’ Then he consecrated Jesse and his sons, and invited them to the sacrifice.”

God showed Samuel that He wanted young David–the youngest of Jesse’s eight sons–to be anointed king. “Then Samuel took his horn of oil and anointed him in the midst of his brothers; and the Spirit of the LORD came upon David from that day forward (verse 13).”

God did not order Samuel to lie, as Samuel did not say something which was untrue. But Samuel did not say everything he knew–he kept part of the reason for his coming to himself. It is a difference to say something which is partly true and partly false–with the intent to deceive someone. When Abram, later called Abraham, told Abimelech that his wife was his sister–for fear that the people might kill him if they knew the truth–he told a complete lie (compare Genesis 12:11-13; 20:1-2). Even though Sarai, who was later called Sarah, was his half-sister, she was clearly his wife (Genesis 20:11-13)–and the Bible always refers to Sarai (later Sarah) as his wife. The Bible never calls her his sister (Genesis 12:18-19; 18:9). Further, Abram’s bad example apparently prompted Isaac to repeat his father’s mistake (compare Genesis 26:6-10).

On the other hand, Samuel did not lie–even though his initial question to God (“How can I go? If Saul hears it, he will kill me”) shows a character weakness of human infirmity in Samuel. He should have realized that God would protect him on his mission, since He had ordered him to go. Matthew Henry’s Commentary adds the following thought: “Samuel’s faith was not so strong as one would have expected, else he would not have thus feared the rage of Saul.”

Nevertheless, God told Samuel what to do, and he came and sacrificed to God. He did not tell the people the main reason for his coming; still, what he said was true. The Nelson Study Bible comments: “God did not instruct Samuel to lie, but instead He provided a legitimate opportunity for Samuel to visit with Jesse and his family. By performing the anointing in Bethlehem while officiating at a sacrifice, Samuel would avoid arousing the suspicions of Saul.”

Similar the Ryrie Study Bible: “The Lord did not suggest deception, but simply told Samuel to take care of the anointing while he was in Bethlehem on official business.”

Matthew Henry’s Commentary adds: “God orders him to cover his design with a sacrifice: ‘Say, I have come to sacrifice’; and it was true he did, and it was proper that he should, when he came to anoint a king, chapter 11, verse 15. ” [We should also note that Samuel anointed King Saul in connection with a sacrifice (1 Samuel 9:10-27; 10:1; especially chapter 9, verse 12).]

In addition to the fact that Samuel came to offer an actual animal sacrifice, his pronouncement, in following God’s injunction, could have also been a reference to David himself–as David would become a living sacrifice with the anointment as king and the receipt of the gift of God’s Holy Spirit (compare Romans 12:1; 1 Peter 2:5).

Some may still wonder whether it does not constitute a lie and is deceitful conduct to conceal or keep secret certain information. However, the Bible makes it clear that we are NOT to violate confidentiality. If we were always obligated to tell everything we know, when asked, then we could not uphold confidentiality–even though the Bible instructs us to do so.

For instance, we read in Proverbs 11:13: “A talebearer reveals secrets, But he who is of a faithful spirit conceals a matter.” And Proverbs 25:9 tells us: “.. do not disclose the secret to another.”

We are instructed to “conceal knowledge” (Proverbs 12:23), and Proverbs 17:9 reveals: “He who covers a transgression seeks love, But he who repeats a matter separates friends.”

We also read that Jesus Christ told parables to the public at large, so that they would not understand (Matthew 13:10-15). Christ did not lie or try to deceive–but He did not want to divulge information to the people which they could not properly handle. He warns us not to cast our pearls before swine, so that they don’t turn on us and tear us in pieces (Matthew 7:6; compare Proverbs 9:7).

In conclusion, Samuel did not lie, when he concealed the fact that he had come to anoint one of Jesse’s sons as the next king. What he said, however, was true–but he did not reveal, nor was he obligated to reveal, the entire purpose of his coming.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

It is correct that 2 Peter 2:6-8 refers to “righteous Lot,” and describes him, by extension, as a “godly” person. The entire passage reads: “[Since God turned] the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah into ashes, condemned them to destruction, making them an example to those who afterward would live ungodly; and delivered righteous Lot, who was oppressed by the filthy conduct of the wicked (for that righteous man, dwelling among them, tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds)–then the Lord knows how to deliver the godly out of temptations and to reserve the unjust under punishment for the day of judgment.”

We must not forget that God spared Lot because He would not destroy the righteous with the wicked (compare Genesis 18:23). The two angels could not find ten righteous in Sodom (compare Genesis 18:32). Only Lot was willing to give them shelter, when they appeared in Sodom as strangers, while “all the people from every quarter” surrounded Lot’s house (Genesis 19:4), to “know them carnally” (verse 5). They did not realize, of course, that the men were angels. Since the Bible says that all of the men were present to act “wickedly” (verse 7), this might even suggest that Lot’s sons-in-law were present as well. Still, the angels were willing to spare Lot’s wife, Lot’s daughters, and even Lot’s sons-in-law (verse 12-15). There is no indication that Lot’s wife, his daughters or his sons-in-law were righteous, but God wanted to spare them for Lot’s sake. However, the sons-in-law did not flee and were consumed, and Lot’s wife died, too, when she looked back, as she apparently did not really want to leave Sodom (Genesis 19:26; compare Luke 17:28-33). We also get the impression from the account in Genesis that God spared Lot, to an extent, because of His righteous servant Abraham (compare Genesis 19:29), implying that Lot was not as righteous as Abraham.

Nevertheless, Lot, too, is described as righteous. However, the fact that Lot is described in that way–in comparison with the wickedness of his surroundings–does not mean that he was without fault or sin. Lot sinned when he greedily chose for himself the seemingly best part of the land of Canaan, “the plain of Jordan,” even though God had promised all of this land to Abraham (compare Genesis 13:7-13). Lot sinned greatly and horribly when he was suggesting to the homosexual citizens of Sodom to commit fornication with his two virgin daughters, to protect the two strangers in his house (compare Genesis 19:8). And he sinned when he allowed his daughters to make him drunk with wine, so that they could have offspring with him (compare Genesis 19:30-38).

However, Lot is still called “righteous” by God, as God looks foremost at the heart and the motive of a person. God forgives sins upon repentance, and He judges us mercifully, when our hearts are right. David SINNED horribly at times; for instance, when he committed adultery with Bathsheba and had her husband Uriah murdered in war. But God forgave him his sins, when he repented. He called David a man after His own HEART. The prostitute Rahab SINNED when she lied about the spies, but she did so because she wanted to save the spies. Lot SINNED when he was willing to turn over his daughters to the wicked men of Sodom, but he did so because he wanted to protect the strangers under his roof, fulfilling God’s command of hospitality and all that it entails.

This does not excuse Lot. But it also shows the great mercy of God who is willing to forgive us our unrighteousness, upon repentance, and to focus, instead, on our righteousness. Peter describes Lot as “just” or “righteous,” because he “tormented his righteous soul from day to day by seeing and hearing their lawless deeds” (2 Peter 2:8) — even though he might not have always known how to ACT righteously.

In Ezekiel 9:1-11, we find a similar example involving those who are protected from harm because of their righteousness. In this passage, God commands His angels to slay the wicked, but to spare those in Jerusalem “who sigh and cry over all the abominations that are done within it” (verse 4). Again, God is focusing primarily on the hearts and motives of His people. This does not mean that God tolerates or even justifies wrongdoing–but He understands that the flesh is weak. That is why we need God’s help DAILY to make us righteous–both in motive and in conduct–by forgiving us our sins, upon genuine repentance, and by cleansing us from all unrighteousness (1 John 1:9). When we confess and leave behind our unrighteousness, as Lot did, God forgives and forgets about it, while focusing instead on our righteousness.

Lead Writer: Norbert Link

The passage in question reads in full, beginning in verse 14:

“Pursue peace with all people, and holiness, without which no one will see the Lord: looking carefully lest anyone fall short of the grace of God; lest any root of bitterness springing up cause trouble, and by this many become defiled; lest there be any fornicator or profane person like Esau, who for one morsel of food sold his birthright. For you know that afterward, when he wanted to inherit the blessing, he was rejected… (verses 14-17).”

Paul gives us several examples to avoid, in order to make sure that we will inherit the blessing of the Kingdom of God. He tells us that if we don’t pursue peace with all people, but rather continue to live a contentious life style, we will not see or be accepted by Jesus Christ. The same is true when we don’t live holy or God-pleasing lives. He also explains that we won’t inherit the blessing either, when we allow a root of bitterness to spring up causing trouble; and finally, we won’t be accepted by God if we commit spiritual fornication by rejecting, through our words, thoughts and deeds, the gift of eternal life which God has in store for us.

Especially the term, “root of bitterness,” is very meaningful, as it can and will defile the bitter person, as well as others, if it is not immediately rooted out.

The Broadman Bible Commentary explains:

“It is interesting to observe that this… [phrase] (‘root of bitterness’) was used by Peter in his denunciation of Simon Magus, who tried to buy the gift of the Holy Spirit with money (Acts 8:23). The writer may be referring to the passage in Deuteronomy 29:18: ‘Beware… lest there be among you a root bearing poisonous and bitter fruit.’ Here the warning is against one who assures himself that he is in the covenant relationship, even though he continues to keep a stubborn heart.”

The Commentary continues to point out that Hebrews is referring to “those people who are like Esau, who value immediate gratification of sensual desire above the final approval of God.”

The Commentary on the Whole Bible, by Jamieson, Fausset and Brown, explains that the root of bitterness “comprehends every person and every principle of doctrine or practice so radically corrupt as to spread corruption all around. The only safety is in rooting out such a root of bitterness… So long as it is hidden under the earth it cannot be remedied, but when it ‘springs up,’ it must be dealt with boldly.”

The New Bible Commentary:Revised adds that a person with a root of bitterness “can bring defilement on the whole congregation.” It refers in this context to the story of Achan, in Joshua 6:18; and 7:25.

When checking the Greek word for “bitterness,” i.e., pikria, it is defined, by W.E. Vine, Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, as “denot[ing] bitterness.” The Dictionary continues to point out that it “is used in Acts 8:23, metaphorically, of a condition of extreme wickedness, ‘gall of bitterness’ or ‘bitter gall’; in Rom. 3:14 of evil speaking; in Eph. 4:31, of bitter hatred; in Heb. 12:15, in the same sense, metaphorically, of a root of bitterness, producing bitter fruit.”

We can see, then, from the forgoing that the springing up of a root of bitterness must be avoided at all costs. This root does not suddenly appear, without having first been nurtured in the heart of a person. We see from the Biblical examples that the root of bitterness can be the result of wrong motives, thoughts, desires and actions. It is therefore important that we examine our hearts, to see whether Jesus Christ lives in us (compare 2 Corinthians 13:5), or whether we have a bitter, hateful, stubborn or hardened heart and a contentious spirit. If we do have such an arrogant heart (compare Isaiah 9:9), we must repent of it immediately, purify our hearts (James 4:8), and ask God to give us a humble and submissive heart (Matthew 11:29).

The Church of the Eternal God in the USA and its corporate affiliates in Canada and Great Britain have consistently taught that it is not wrong to eat out on the weekly Sabbath or annual Holy Days (which are also called “Sabbaths” in the Bible), depending on the circumstances. At the same time, we must always keep firmly in mind that whatever we do or say or think on the Sabbath should be in realization of the fact that we are spending time that God has set aside for a holy purpose (Isaiah 58:13-14).

Quoting from our booklet, titled, “God’s Commanded Holy Days,” pages 21 and 22, we have said:

“It was Jesus Christ-the LORD of the Sabbath-who created the Sabbath, following the directive and command of God the Father. It is God-both the Father and the Son-who expects man to keep the Sabbath holy. Only God has the right to tell us how to keep the Sabbath holy. In Matthew 12:1-8, Christ tells us that mercy allows for a hungry person to get and eat food on the Sabbath. We see here a very important distinction to the time when God did not provide ancient Israel with manna from heaven on the Sabbath. In Christ’s day, food was available. The disciples could pluck heads of grain from the field. Under the law, the landowners were not allowed to harvest completely all grain, but they had to leave some of it in the field, so that those who were hungry could pluck and eat it.

“While this is true, it must be emphasized that the disciples did not ‘harvest’ the field on the Sabbath. They just plucked a few heads of grain to satisfy their hunger. We should also take note of what the Scripture does not address here. Notice that it does not reveal whether the disciples were traveling or whether they were close to home. We are not told why the disciples were hungry to begin with, and why they had not prepared food on the previous day for the Sabbath. The reason we are not told is that it is irrelevant for the point that Christ is making here. The message rings loud and clear: Don’t condemn the innocent as to how they keep the Sabbath. They will have to give account to their own Lord and Master-Jesus Christ (Romans 14: 4, 9-13). Instead, WE are to show mercy and compassion. Mercy teaches us that it is wrong to prohibit a hungry person from getting food for himself and to eat it on the Sabbath.

“This is not to say, however, that a Christian should engage in shopping on the Sabbath, except in a real emergency (compare Nehemiah 13:15-22). Nor should this episode be used as justification or an excuse for a refusal to prepare for the Sabbath on the previous day.

“Note also that the disciples were in the presence of Christ while they were eating. They were with God-in the person of Jesus Christ-and were focusing on God. They did not profane the Sabbath by forgetting the sanctity of the day when they plucked grain to eat it. If Church members today eat occasionally in a nice, quiet restaurant on the Sabbath or a Holy Day after Church services, for instance, while, at the same time fellowshipping with other brethren and speaking about the things that pertain to God, then we must not condemn them for that. For instance, Church members might be traveling for quite a distance to attend Church services, looking forward to spending additional time with their brethren after services. If, on the other hand, your conscience does not allow you to go to a restaurant on a Sabbath or a Holy Day, then you must not do so, since ‘whatever is not from faith [or conviction] is sin’ (Romans 14:23). It would be advisable, though, to review the Scriptures to see whether your conscience is based on the Bible or merely on man-made traditions. God never accepts our conviction as justification for the violation of His law, and man-made regulations can, as we saw, cloud the intent of God’s commandments in the minds of men.”

We might want to add here that anyone who sincerely believes that he or she would compromise God’s Sabbath by eating away from home in a commercial establishment must also consider their own example within the body of believers and the effect on other believers — especially those who might be weak in the faith.

This teaching, that it is not wrong to eat out on the Sabbath, is in accordance with the long-held understanding of the Church of God. In a letter from the Letter Answering Department of the Worldwide Church of God, dated October 1988, this understanding was correctly explained, as follows:

“The Church has long taught that it is not wrong to eat out on the weekly Sabbath occasionally or on the annual Holy Days, depending upon one’s circumstances and preferences. Those waiters, waitresses, chefs, and the like, who may serve in a restaurant, are not our ‘servants’ in the way described in the Fourth Commandment. They are the employees of the owner of the restaurant. They would be working regardless of whether or not we ate there. God does not hold us responsible for their working on the Sabbath just because we use their services — unless we are the only ones who ever ate in that restaurant on the Sabbath. Obviously, we make up a very small portion of the customers served in restaurants on the Sabbath or Holy Days. Further, eating out occasionally on the Sabbath can enhance spiritual fellowship with brethren and allow family members more time to be with one another.”

Mr. Armstrong, the late human leader of the Church of God, who died in 1986, explained once during a Bible study that he did not feel that it was inappropriate to go to a restaurant on a Sabbath. His long-time assistant, Aaron Dean, subsequently confirmed Mr. Armstrong’s understanding on the issue, to the effect that eating or not eating did not stop the cooks and servers at a restaurant from working on the Sabbath. Mr. Armstrong did not make it a practice of going out on the Sabbath (except on trips), and he didn’t comment a whole lot about it. He would not have formal dinners on the Sabbath (Friday nights or on Saturdays, during the day) at his house or Ambassador College — a college which was run by the Church — because that would have required employees or College students to work on the Sabbath. He would go out on a Friday night if he had guests, and if he had served his guests in his house, it would have meant a lot of work for Mr. Armstrong’s housekeeper and cook.

The Church of God in Germany published a booklet in the early 70’s, titled “Gottes Sabbat–ein Tag der Freude” (“God’s Sabbath — A Day of Joy”). It reflected the Church’s understanding on the issue, and stated: “In Matthew 12:1-5, Christ shows clearly that it is not prohibited to acquire food on the Sabbath, when one is hungry and has nothing to eat. If one is not at home, it is not wrong to go to a restaurant on the Sabbath. There are people who do not have the means of cooking at home. In such cases it is permissible to buy food on the Sabbath.”

Some have felt that we must never eat out on the Sabbath, as this would be engaging in the business of buying and selling. Sometimes, Exodus 16:22 and Nehemiah 10:31; 13:16-22 are quoted for that proposition. However, none of these Scriptures apply to eating occasionally in a restaurant.

Exodus 16 refers to a limited situation at the time. If we wanted to apply the entire passage literally today, we would not be allowed to leave our houses on the Sabbath (compare Exodus 16:29). But, we generally must leave our houses today to attend Sabbath services (Leviticus 23:3; Hebrews 10:24-25). In regard to the extreme and unusual circumstances at the time of Exodus 16, please also note that today, our food lasts longer than just for one day (compare Exodus 16:18-20). In addition, Exodus 16 does not even address the question of buying and selling.

Nehemiah 10 and 13 seem to apply more to the situation of a farmer’s market. If we were to apply it to occasionally eating out on the Sabbath, we would have to answer the following questions:

If Nehemiah were to prohibit eating out on the Sabbath, as it would violate, in principle, the prohibition to engage in commerce, then we could not stay at a hotel during the Sabbath (which Mr. Armstrong did on numerous occasions), as we would pay for the hotel’s services during that time (including eating complimentary breakfasts, room cleaning, using electricity), and we could never ride a bus to get to services (which Mr. Armstrong did habitually for a while). However, Christ made it very clear in the parable of the Good Samaritan that it is not wrong to stay in a hotel or an inn on the Sabbath and to pay for the services of the inn keeper (compare Luke 10:30, 33-35). Please note that in the parable, the man was severely beaten, and left almost half dead (verse 30). The Samaritan bandaged his wounds, brought him to the inn, took care of him (verse 34), departed the next day, giving the inn keeper money, and told him to take care of him, until he returned, when he would repay him (verse 35). Since the man was severely wounded and half-dead, he could not have been restored in just a week — which means, there would at least have been one Sabbath in between.

If Nehemiah were to prohibit eating out on the Sabbath, as it would violate, in principle, the prohibition to have a person labor for us, then we could not use a bus on the Sabbath to drive to services (as the bus driver “labors” for us); and hotel personnel could not do anything for us on the Sabbath (including cleaning our rooms and beds, bring us fresh towels, etc.).

If Nehemiah were to prohibit eating out on the Sabbath as it would violate, in principle, the prohibition to “work,” then one would have to answer the question why a person can “work” by preparing food on the Sabbath. For instance, Christ made it clear that it was not wrong to circumcise a baby on the Sabbath. This year, the Passover evening falls on the Sabbath, and work will have to be done during the ceremony. In addition, the Night to Be Much Observed falls this year on an annual Holy Day, following a weekly Sabbath. Some members of the Church of the Eternal God keep the Night to Be Much Observed in a nice, quiet restaurant, so as to reduce the work load on the women that night. Otherwise, the ladies would have to work during the weekly Sabbath to prepare meals for the evening. To prepare meals on Friday might pose several problems, as Friday, as the preparation day for the Sabbath, should be spent more properly to spiritually prepare for the Passover evening (in addition to finishing removing all leavening from the house, which must be completed this year by Friday evening).

In the early 70’s, it was the practice of the Church of God in Germany to meet together in a restaurant during the Night to Be Much Observed. This was always a most inspiring experience, and rightly observed, did not at all take away from the spirit of that occasion.

Some have said that we can eat out on an annual Holy Day, or on a weekly Sabbath, when we are traveling, but that we cannot eat out on a weekly Sabbath, when we are “within our gates.” However, there is no Scriptural evidence supporting this claim. Apart from the fact that the issues of having someone work for us, or engaging in business, would still be the same, the only Scripture occasionally used to justify the distinction is Deuteronomy 16:13. However, if anything, this passage would say the exact opposite (compare verse 14). Some have said that we can eat out on an annual Holy Day, as we are to “rejoice” on such a Day (compare Deuteronomy 16:14 and 15). However, this permission would equally apply to the weekly Sabbath, as we are to “rejoice” on the weekly Sabbath as well, which is a delight and a feast (compare Leviticus 23:2-3; Isaiah 58:13).

The religious leaders of Christ’s day made religion a burden (compare Matthew 23:4). However, in speaking of God’s commandments, John stated: “For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments. And His commandments are not burdensome” (1 John 5:3).

In conclusion, to teach that it is a sin to eat out in a restaurant on the weekly and annual Sabbaths is not Biblical.