Romans 14 Expounded
The following is an excerpt from an article entitled, Should Christians Keep the Sabbath Day?. It is authored by and copyrighted to Anthony Coore.
"One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it..."
Just reading this text, and with the preconceived idea that Sabbath keeping is not important, it is not hard to see how one could conclude that it does not matter if one keeps it or not. However, if one is going to use this text to justify Sabbath-breaking, then one must be absolutely sure that it is addressing the Sabbath. Notice that the Sabbath is not explicitly mentioned in the verses quoted, the chapter, or even anywhere else in the letter. Could it be possible that these verses are not referring to the Sabbath?
Consider the following scenario. In a certain family, there are two brothers. One believes Tuesday is better than the other days of the week to sing a certain hymn. After all, his grandfather, who is now dead, was considered a righteous man, and he used to make sure to sing that hymn on Tuesdays. His father also carries on the tradition of singing that hymn on Tuesdays. Though it has never been taught that Tuesday is the best day to sing this hymn, this one of the brothers believes this song should definitely be sung on Tuesdays. It is fine to not sing, or to sing, this hymn on the other days. But Tuesdays it should be sung.
The other brother has no problem in carrying on the tradition, though he sees nothing wrong if one does not sing the hymn on Tuesdays. Clearly then, one man esteems one day above another, and another esteems every day alike. And truly each should be persuaded in his own mind, so that none sears his conscience.
Does this mean that this esteeming of a "day above another" is referring to, or even has anything to do with, the Sabbath? Obviously not. From the context, it is clear that the regarding of a day above another is in the matter of singing a particular hymn. In fact, these two brothers could be Sabbath keepers and the statement that one esteems one day above another would still be true, and also would have nothing to do with Sabbath-keeping. Also note that Tuesday is arbitrary in the scenario; the seventh day could have been the particular day instead, and still the matter of esteeming a day above others, would not indicate that one man believes the Sabbath is to be kept and another believes it does not matter, for the whole issue is about the singing of a particular hymn.
With the above illustration in mind, one must at least concede that Paul's statement by itself in verse 5, does not necessarily have anything to do with Sabbath-keeping, or whether the Sabbath should be observed. Therefore, if there is nothing more in the context to prove that Paul had Sabbath-keeping in mind, one cannot honestly use this text to support not keeping the Sabbath.
Let us examine the context then, to see if it is possible to ascertain what Paul had in mind.
"Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations" (vs 1).
The RSV renders it as:
"As for the man who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not for disputes over opinions".
So Paul is here dealing with matters of opinion. If something is an opinion, then it means that Scripture has not explicitly ruled on the issue. The next verse shows what the dubious disputations concerned.
"For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs" (vs 2).
Paul then says in verse 3:
"Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not: and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him".
The concern is in the matters of eating. One believes one can eat anything (ie. meat and vegetables), while the "weak" believes in eating only vegetables.
Notice that there is no scripture that commands eating only vegetables, and neither is there any which says eating only vegetables is wrong. For whatever reason, some thought that the situation required that they abstain from meat. This was their opinion. Paul goes on to show that judgment in the situation was a personal matter. That is why he who eats should not pass judgment on the one who abstains and vice versa. God has accepted both.
Examine the entire chapter and see for yourself that Paul's concern throughout this chapter is directly related to matters of eating or drinking. Notice that he mentions days only in passing. The mention of days is clearly in the context of eating and not eating.
"He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks" (vs 6).
Paul is not dealing with two separate issues here. He introduces the aspect of regarding days, but the matter he is discussing, is still eating and not eating. The remainder of the chapter makes this evident.
Observe the following verses:
"I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is
nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth
any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean" (vs
14). 5
"But if thy brother be grieved with thy meat, now walkest
thou not charitably. Destroy not him with thy meat, for whom
Christ died" (vs 15).
"For the
(Notice here that he does not say anything about days. If his earlier mention of days was to be understood as another issue apart from the matter of eating and not eating, then it seems logical that he would have included days among "meat and drink".)
"For meat destroy not the work of God. All things indeed are pure; but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak... And he that doubteth is damned if he eat..." (vs 20-23).
We see that Paul does not mention days again, but that he does continue with the issue of "meat and drink". His mention of days is clearly just in passing, and must be understood in the context of eating matters.
Exactly which days Paul was referring to, and exactly how one regarded the day, are not specified. But based on the context, the days quite likely were days which some thought best for eating meat, or perhaps for fasting or at least for abstaining from certain food.
This deduction is a possibility, not only because it fits the context, but also because the historical record shows that such views were held among Christians. The Didache (an early Christian resource dating from about the 2nd century C.E.) gives the following instruction to Christians:
"Don't fast on the same day with hypocrites (Pharisees), for they fast on Monday and Thursday; but you must fast on Wednesday and Friday".
Even now, many Christians maintain a tradition of not eating meat (usually with the exception of fish) on Fridays.
Another possibility is that
in
With this in mind, it is easy to see that Paul's mention of days could be totally unrelated to the Sabbath and the Festivals of God. This text therefore, cannot justify the non-Sabbatarian's position.
Some might concede that this text is not specifically discussing the Sabbath, but wonder if the principle could not apply to the Sabbath days. Recall that what Paul is addressing falls in the category of "doubtful disputations" (or opinions). That means that the right or wrong of the matter was dependent on personal preference. Since the scripture gives explicit instructions to keep the Sabbath day and the Festivals of God, then whether we are to keep them is not dependent on personal preference. The matter of whether to keep the Sabbath therefore does not fall in the category of "doubtful disputations". Aspects of how to keep the Sabbath might require personal judgment, but whether we are to keep it, scripture already dictates. The principle used in Rom 14 concerning days, then, cannot apply to the Sabbath, in regard to whether it is to be kept.
Those who use Rom 14 as a license to break the Sabbath, completely ignore the context that Paul is speaking in. Besides the contextual problems that arise from their position, other critical problems also surface. For example, how is it possible for Paul to relegate a practice so cherished by the Jews to an inconsequential matter, in just a couple passing comments, without giving an explanation, and at the same time not create a stir among the Jews? (Recall how much controversy arose when Paul taught the Gentiles that they did not have to be circumcised. Just see Acts 15 and Paul's epistles for an understanding of how much trouble this issue caused.)
It is ludicrous in the least, to think that Paul who said, "circumcision is nothing and uncircumcision is nothing, but keeping the commandments is what matters" (1 Cor 7:19), could relegate the matter of keeping the Sabbath commandment to the same level as the matter of whether one should eat only vegetables (an issue Scripture gives no commandment on), without giving an explanation that would disannul the sanctity of the Sabbath. (If Paul is saying that it does not matter if one keeps the Sabbath, then what is his reason for saying this?)
Once again recall the reason given in Ex 20:11 for why the Sabbath is holy. The reason given is directly related to what God did at the Creation. If Paul ever taught that Christians need not obey the Sabbath commandment, he would have had to give an explanation that nullified the reason given in Ex 20 as to why the Sabbath day is holy. No such explanation exists in Scripture however.
5. Some have advanced the
idea that Paul is discussing the issue of the law concerning clean and unclean
meats, because verse 14 uses the word, "unclean" (Gk koinos) in relation to how some esteemed meat. The
mention of days is then interpreted in the context of the law, which would seem
to imply that Paul is indeed referring to the Sabbaths and festivals (Lev 23).
This position is untenable however. First of all, the
Greek word translated as "unclean" in verse 14 simply means
"common" or "defiled".
It is not the Greek word that would correspond to the Hebrew word used
to describe unclean meat in the law.
This word in verse 14 is also used in places such as Heb 10:29 and Mk
7:2. The situation regarding meat discussed here in Romans,
is very similar to the situation among the Corinthian church concerning meat,
which Paul discusses in 1 Corinthians 8. There the concern is about meat
sacrificed to idols. If meat was being offered to idols in
Second, Paul shows that the weak were abstaining from
all meat, and eating only vegetables. If the concern was really over the law of
clean and unclean meat, the "weak" would not have to abstain from all
meat, as the law gives a variety of clean meats which are allowed to be eaten.
A third point to note, is
that Paul also speaks of drinking wine in verse 21. The law does not forbid the
drinking of wine in general.
The idea then that Paul is addressing matters relating to meat and days as specified in the law is contextually unsound. Go Back
The excerpt (as well as any others from the article) above may not be distributed without permission from the author, Anthony Coore, who can be contacted at [email protected]. Mr. Coore permits and encourages distribution his article in its entirety, which can be accessed at the following url: http://www.geocities.com/atimco/sabbath.html. This study was taken from: http://www.geocities.com/atimco.
Contact: [email protected]
http://www.geocities.com/keniru_san/