ROMANS 14:5-6

I decided to try a simple research exercise I hadn't done in several years. I picked a Bible passage at random and went on the internet to see what various commentators had to say about it. One bit of warning for anyone trying to get their primary Bible information on-line: The most commonly available commentaries will be from a previous generation or older and many unfortunately rely entirely on the KJV, which can be misleading in a number of cases. The other information you may see is from splinter denominations or from individuals with no particular educational training in the field (such as myself). The passage I chose for this experiment was Romans 14:5-6, which reads as follows:

“One person may regard one day above another one, while another one treats all days the same. On points such as this, each person should have reached conviction concerning his particular belief. Whoever respects a particular day has the Lord in mind when he does it, and whoever eats meat has the Lord in mind when he does that, as long as he gives thanks to God; and whoever abstains is also doing it for the same reason.”

Most of the standard commentaries found on the internet agreed that the context involved a controversy within the church at Rome arising from a dispute from the Jewish Christians who naturally felt that they should continue observing all of the Jewish fast and feast days and the Gentile Christians who felt that these had been done away with by the coming of Christ and were in any case not at all part of their heritage. These same commentaries often cited Galatians 4:10 and Colossians 2:16 as parallel teachings regarding the keeping of “special days.” In both these other passages, it should be noted that Paul comes down fairly hard on those who are doing so, and they seem to be associated closely with the Judiazers and those being influenced by them.

However, some of the mainstream commentators feel that the conflict is between those who, like Paul himself, elevate the sabbath day and those who elevate all days to the rank of sabbath. (Whedon's Commentary) And even others feel that the controversy was between those who observed only the Christian sabbath (Sunday) and those who additionally observed the Jewish Sabbath. (Peter Pett)

The real disagreement comes in when trying to apply this passage to the church today. Here are some sample opinions ranging from the most lenient to the most strict regarding the observance of days:

    No day, even the sabbath, whether Jewish or Christian, is any holier than any other day. (Henry Alford)

    This does not include the Christian Sabbath, which is still to be observed and was not being referred to by Paul at all in this passage. (Albert Barnes, Haldane's Exposition, Hodge's Commentary, Coffman Commentaries, and Expositor's Greek Testament)

    By now, we should have grown out of the weak and immature practice of observing certain days.This applies especially to the celebration of the pagan festival of Christmas. (Landmark Independent Baptist Church)

    “...it is clear that the observance of special days has absolutely no sanction, but is purely a question of religious expediency. That, however, is sufficient ground on which to rest it, and experience seems in favour of some such system as that adopted by our own Church.” (Elliott's Commentary) John Gill's Exposition similarly excepts from discussion any special days that might be appointed by the church such as Lent.

    “It does not follow from hence, that the Catholic Church hath not power to command days of fasting.” (George Haydock's Catholic Bible Commentary)

And then there are certain commentators who want to jump into the application of a passage without really discussing its immediate context at all. For example, S. A. Brooke says regarding these verses: “It is the habit of some parents, not only to check, but even to forbid the expression of opinion on the part of their sons and daughters long after they have reached an age when they ought to be able and to be encouraged to think for themselves.” There is nothing particularly wrong with this sentiment; however, it has only a tenuous connection with the passage itself and there are probably much better scriptures he could have quoted instead.

Finally, are the opinions of some groups outside the mainstream of Christian thought who don't really care one way or another on the subject of “special days” but wish to concentrate on matters of more importance to their own unique doctrines instead. And there are also those who wish to distract the reader from some uncomfortable implications of the verses that might run counter to their own unique viewpoints:

    Church of the Great God: “The whole matter involves abstention from foods on particular days...Paul is not referring to God's Sabbath or holy days at all!!”

    The Restored Church of God: “Some conclude that these verses state that it does not make a difference to God which days we keep. They take these verses out of context and apply their own meaning. In order to grasp the true intent, we must read starting where the context of the subject begins – not just these two verses. Verses 1-4 identify the subject in context as vegetarianism – not which days should be kept.”

    Raoul Dederen, Andrews University (Seventh Day Adventist): “In fact, the matter of 'esteeming one day as better than another' seems to be merely injected into a passage which existed in the Roman community on the matter of meat-eating versus vegetarianism and abstinence from wine.”

So which opinion is the correct one? Although I am tempted to weigh in on one or the other of the above explanations, the bottom line is that to do so would be to violate the very principles Paul is stressing in this passage. He is teaching that the beliefs mentioned in these verses are only tertiary issues at best and should not be used to divide the church into factions that pass judgment on one another. Unity of spirit among Christians is much more important than a lockstep uniformity of belief and practice in these issues.

At this point, one would think that everything has been said on the subject that could be said. But it is useful to consult more recent opinions from the academic world also since great strides in the areas of history and archaeology have been made in the last 100 years that occasionally allow us better insights into the culture of biblical times. In addition, theological musings on Scripture have taken new turns in recent years, even though they must always be taken with a grain of salt. It has been said that there are two fields where creativity is to be discouraged: theology and accounting. In the case of the passage at hand, I will only offerfour illustrative examples without much further comment:

    New theological approaches – William S. Campbell: “It is only relatively recently that New Testament interpreters have recognized that Paul argues strongly in defense of Jewish-related scruples in Romans 14-15, requiring that each be fully convinced in one's own mind (14:5).”

   Additional historical details – Ernst Kasemann mentions the fact that Hellenistic Gentiles believed in “astrology connected with fear of demons which makes a distinction between lucky and unlucky days [such as our Friday the 13th].”

    New exegetical arguments to distinguish the type of days being talked about – Leon Morris: “...it is hard to imagine that Paul would have accepted an appeal to luck as an acceptable Christian lifestyle.”

    Explanations of difference in tone between this passage and parallels in Galatians and Colossians – Murray: The reason for the relative leniency in teaching in Romans is that it was not closely associated with heresy as it was in those other two churches. Other scholars suggest that since Paul was not as acquainted with the Roman church as with the other churches, he may not have understood the seriousness of the situation there.