Sabbatarianism Pt. 5: Romans 14:5

In this post, we will consider what Romans 14:5 tells us about the issue of the Christian and the Sabbath. Here is the verse:

“One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5).”

Of course, ““A text without a context is just a pretext for what we want it to mean” (Ben Witherington The Indelible Image p 41), so let’s take a look at the broader context. First, for an overview of the context of Romans, see the post I did on the purpose of Paul’s letter to the Romans. This is very important to the consideration of what Paul is addressing here in Rom 14. Here’s one of the most relevant sections dealing with the historical background to Romans.

“…problems in the Roman church were initiated by the edict of Claudius in A.D. 49 that expelled all Jews from Rome. In Acts 18:2 we find that this expulsion included Priscilla and Aquila, who appear to have already been Christians at the time. This (and a few other arguments put forth by Donfried) strongly suggests that the expulsion included all Jewish Christians. Thus, the church at Rome from A.D. 49, until the death of Claudius in A.D. 54 would have been almost entirely Gentile. Jewish Christians, upon returning in A.D. 54, would come back to find a Church radically devoid of the Jewish elements that were present when they left in the expulsion. It is easy to imagine the issues that might arise in such a situation, and it is these that we find addressed throughout Romans.”

Now, for the immediate context:

“As for the one who is weak in faith, welcome him, but not to quarrel over opinions. One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains, and let not the one who abstains pass judgment on the one who eats, for God has welcomed him. Who are you to pass judgment on the servant of another? It is before his own master that he stands or falls. And he will be upheld, for the Lord is able to make him stand. One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. For none of us lives to himself, and none of us dies to himself. For if we live, we live to the Lord, and if we die, we die to the Lord. So then, whether we live or whether we die, we are the Lord’s. For to this end Christ died and lived again, that he might be Lord both of the dead and of the living. Why do you pass judgment on your brother? Or you, why do you despise your brother? For we will all stand before the judgment seat of God; for it is written, “As I live, says the Lord, every knee shall bow to me, and every tongue shall confess to God.” So then each of us will give an account of himself to God. Therefore let us not pass judgment on one another any longer, but rather decide never to put a stumbling block or hindrance in the way of a brother. I know and am persuaded in the Lord Jesus that nothing is unclean in itself, but it is unclean for anyone who thinks it unclean. For if your brother is grieved by what you eat, you are no longer walking in love. By what you eat, do not destroy the one for whom Christ died. So do not let what you regard as good be spoken of as evil. For the kingdom of God is not a matter of eating and drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit. Whoever thus serves Christ is acceptable to God and approved by men. So then let us pursue what makes for peace and for mutual upbuilding. Do not, for the sake of food, destroy the work of God. Everything is indeed clean, but it is wrong for anyone to make another stumble by what he eats. It is good not to eat meat or drink wine or do anything that causes your brother to stumble. The faith that you have, keep between yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.”
Romans 14:1‭-‬23

It would seem at first glance, that when Paul says, “One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind (Romans 14:5)” he is making all observance of “days” a matter of conscience, and explicitly teaching that they are not an issue of objective morality. And, as I believe will be made clear, that is exactly what he is teaching. Paul is writing specifically to address Jewish Christians who were trying to enforce upon the consciences of gentiles religious days of observance, the most prominent of which for Jews was the Sabbath day. Paul likely had in mind more than the Sabbath, but he almost certainly had in mind the Sabbath in Rom 14.

Those who “esteem all days alike” are very clearly not living in sin. As a matter of fact, Paul was in the category of those who “esteem all days alike”, because he put himself in the category of the “strong”, ie those who feel freedom of conscience in these matters (Rom 15:1).

In our passage, Paul is addressing matters of conscience. Some people see it as objectively sinful to eat certain foods, and to break the observance of certain days. Others believe these things are not objectively sinful. Paul says that all of these matters are matters of conscience. Paul was writing to those (specifically Jews, cf the background to Romans) who hold to religious days of obligation; days during which you were required to perform/abstain from certain actions, the breaking of which constituted sin against God. Paul says “All days are alike” in the sense that in the New Covenant there are no “days” that are commanded to be kept, the breaking of which would constitute sin against God. All “day keeping” is relegated to a matter of conscience. Being that the controversy in Rome was of Jews trying to enforce the Mosaic law on Gentiles, and the observance of food laws and specific days, the Sabbath was likely the day at the forefront of Paul’s mind as he wrote Romans 14. (Note also that the only time Paul, the apostle to the Gentiles, actually uses the word “Sabbath” once in all of his letters, to teach that Christians are not under it- see post on Col 2:16-17)

We find a similar point made in Galatians (which we will not treat in full here, but may at a later time). “Formerly, when you did not know God, you were enslaved to those that by nature are not gods. But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, how can you turn back again to the weak and worthless elementary principles of the world, whose slaves you want to be once more? You observe days and months and seasons and years! I am afraid I may have labored over you in vain (Gal 4:8-11).” Just briefly, Paul here seems to be relegating all observance of days/months/seasons/years (as religious days of obligation) to a former time in salvation history (cf salvation-historical discussion of 3-4). Specifically, he has in mind Jewish days/months/etc (e.g., the Sabbath which would fall in the “days” category”), which he puts in the category of enslavement to the same sorts of things the gentile Galatians had previously been enslaved to (cf 4:1, 3, 7, 22-25 “slave/slavery.”)

What of the Lord’s day?

However, all early Christians (presumably including Paul) very often met on the first day of the week, and this seemed to be a special day for them. The early church fathers referred to this day as “The Lord’s Day.” If everyone thought the Lord’s day was special, then what does it mean to “esteem all days alike”? In what sense did Paul himself “esteem all days alike”? We’ve just seen that they were all alike in that no day was a day of religious obligation.

We have to ask then, in what sense did Paul and the early Christians “esteem” the Lord’s day? One thing is certain: it was not a day of obligation. If someone did not attend the Sunday gathering, it did not constitute sin.

So then, why was the Lord’s day special to them? First, a few considerations that are somewhat an aside about the Lord’s day:

1. The phrase is used once in Scripture- in the New Testament’s apocalyptic book, Revelation: “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day (Rev 1:10). There is nothing in the context of Revelation to make us suppose this is Sunday.
2. One of the primary reasons (and a good reason, consistent with grammatical-historical exegesis) we associate “The Lord’s Day” with Sunday, is that the early church fathers did so- though they were consistent with the NT in that they never called it the “Sabbath”, or said that we were obeying the 4th command of the Decalogue by observing the Lord’s day.
3. The NT constantly speaks of Christians meeting “on the first day of the week”- ie, Sunday.
4. The “Day of the Lord” (Lord’s Day), is a consistent theme of the OT. It is a day when God brings judgement upon the ungodly. Unfortunately, we Christians (including myself!) are not shaped in our thinking by the OT nearly enough, and so often we simply run along with our tradition that “the Lord’s day is Sunday”, without ever so much as thinking what the significance of the relationship the OT “Lord’s Day” might be. Meredith Kline argues that Rev 1:10 is intentionally not referring to the OT “Lord’s Day” because of the difference in the Greek between the Septuagint “Lord’s day”, and John’s “Lord’s day”, but that John had to be purposeful to avoid this direct association because any readers with OT knowledge would be so quick to make it. Kline doesn’t believe the Lord’s day in Rev 1:10 is referring to “Sunday.” I disagree, but you can find a discussion of his view here: https://meredithkline.com/146/

I personally do believe that the “Lord’s day” in Rev 1:10 refers to Sunday, but I don’t think the Bible is as plain about that as most people presume (ie, the phrase is used once, in an apacolyptic book that is notoriously difficult to interpret), and I think that more needs to be considered concerning the relation of this day to the OT “Lord’s Day.”

Back to our main point: how did Paul and the early Christians esteem the Lord’s Day? They celebrated it as the day Christ rose from the dead, but did not hold it as a day of religious obligation, the breaking of which would constitute sin.

The simple fact is, the NT never commands Christians to meet on Sundays; it simply records them frequently meeting on that day (and other days; even “daily” Acts 2:46, 5:42). That said, they NT does command us with these words:

“And let us consider how to stir up one another to love and good works, not neglecting to meet together, as is the habit of some, but encouraging one another, and all the more as you see the Day drawing near (Heb 10:24).”

However, this verse says nothing about specific days; in fact, it encourages us to meet “all the more”, which seems to indicate that the author does not have only Sunday in mind since Sunday only comes once every 7 days, and you can’t make it happen “all the more.”

Meeting on the Lord’s day, however, has been the tradition of the church since the days of the apostles. While it is not sin to miss a gathering on Sunday, most bodies have continued the tradition of the apostles, and meet on the first day of the week to celebrate the Lord’s day (though for the apostles, the “day” was defined differently- see Sabbatarianism Pt 3. Internal Issues in Sabbatarianism: When Does the Day Begin?). If your local church meets on Sunday, you ought to be seeking to avoid forsaking the gathering. If your church meets on Saturday, I’d tell you that I prefer to continue the tradition of the apostles and meet on the day Christ rose, but I would not; and could not tell you that you were living in sin, or else I’d be going beyond that God has clearly said in His word.

Just to make things perhaps a bit clearer as this comes to a close, we will consider something that made be analogous from the life of Jesus.

In Luke 4:16, we read “And He [Jesus] came to Nazareth, where he had been brought up. And as was His custom (εἰωθὸς), He went into the synagogue on the Sabbath day, and he stood up to read.”

For as long as anyone could remember, the Jews had met on the Sabbath to worship YHWH (cf same word in Acts 17:2). However, there was no command from God to meet publicly on the Sabbath. The Sabbath command only had to do with cessation from work, not public worship. Public worship on the Sabbath was a tradition the Jews followed, not a command of God. That’s why Jesus could go into the wilderness 40 days and nights and not be in question of violating the Sabbath by forsaking the gathering.

In the same way, meeting on Sunday is a venerable ecclesiastical tradition. It is the day that Christ rose from the dead. It is the day that most local churches meet to worship our King, and therefore is a day that most Christians should be seeking to meet with their brothers and sisters to be encouraged and worship! But it is not a day of religious obligation, the breaking of which constitutes sin against our Lord.