Romans 14:5

Rom_14:5-6

One man esteemeth one day above another.

The Sabbath question

It has been argued--If we adopt the supposition, that a Christian Sabbath law was then in force, the propriety of the apostles counsel of forbearance must appear questionable, inasmuch as it must have been regarded by all as of indispensable obligation. How, then, could Paul have affirmed that he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it? We reply, that there is no evidence that the Sabbath was included in the apostles representation at all. For--

I. The whole reasoning has reference to observances distinctly Jewish. But the Sabbath was no such institution; it was instituted for mankind at the creation. If so, then it was not among the things that vanished away with the Jewish dispensation.

II. In controversy unqualified terms are always to be understood according to the extent of the subject in dispute. Suppose, e.g., in a controversy respecting the propriety of certain days long observed in the Romish and Anglican churches, a person might use the language before us, and speak of one man esteeming one day above another, while another esteemed every day alike, without being understood to refer to Sunday. No one would think of such a thing; but simply of the days in question. So the present difference was about days of Jewish observance; and therefore the previous question would demand settlement, Was the Sabbath one of these?

III. The language cannot be understood with no qualification; for then it would follow that they were under obligation to appropriate no day whatever to religious services. Now let us try this in application both to the seventh and to the first day of the week.

1. As to the former--those whose argument I am considering, hold the continued obligation of the seventh day upon Jewish believers, till the final overthrow of the nation. Very well, then; if it did continue obligatory its observance could not be optional and left to the mere persuasion of every mans own mind.

2. As to the latter--it is clear that if the reference be to it, the apostles language leaves all at perfect liberty to observe it or not. It is vain to say, that by agreement of the Church, its stated meetings for worship were held on that day; for the terms of the passage contradict such agreement. From which it would follow, that here was a church that had no fixed observance of social worship, but every one left to do what was right in his own eyes. Whether such a state of things be consistent with that God who is not the Author of confusion, I leave you to judge. The passage, therefore, having reference to Jewish days of the week, does not in the least invalidate the fact of the observance of the first day, as it had no place among the days in dispute. And if it has no bearing against the observance of the first day, it leaves the reasonings for it from other sources in full force.

IV. Although the Sabbath was not a peculiarly Jewish institution, yet, being enjoined upon the Israelites by motives peculiar to themselves, it became so. We may admit, therefore, that the apostle refers to it in the light in which it was contended for by the adherents of the law--because, if the original and universal Sabbath was transferred to the first day of the week in commemoration of the finished work of redemption, then it could only be as a part of the Jewish law that the retention of the seventh day was contended for. And this view of the case suits well with the apostles argument, and avoids the difficulty as to there being no day at all on which they were at one, as to the duty of spending it differently from other days. (R. Wardlaw, D.D.)

The religious non-observance of the Sabbath

Consider--

I. The principle on which Paul declared the repeal of the Sabbath.

1. Christ had vindicated all for God: therefore there was no one thing more Gods than another.

(1) Gods parental right to all humanity. There is neither Jew nor Greek, etc.

(2) Gods property in all places: therefore there could be no one place intrinsically holier than another.

(3) The sanctification of all time. To assert that Sunday is more Gods day than Monday, is to maintain Monday is less His.

2. It is not at all inconsistent with this, that just as it became desirable to set apart certain places for worship, in which the noise of business should not be heard, so it was desirable to set apart certain days for worship. But then all such were defensible on the ground of wise and Christian expediency, and not on that of a Divine command. Accordingly in early times the Church felt the necessity of substituting something in place of the ordinances which had been repealed. And the Lords day arose.

II. The modifications of this view.

1. With reference--

(1) To those who conscientiously observed the day. He that observeth the day, observeth it to the Lord. Let him act then on that conviction.

(a) The spiritual intent of Christianity is to worship God every day in the spirit. But had this law been given to the unspiritual Jews, instead of turning every week-day into a Sabbath, they would have transformed every Sabbath into a week-day. Therefore the law specialised a day, in order to lead them to the broader truth that every day is Gods. Now, so far as we are in the Jewish state, the fourth commandment is indispensable. For who is he who needs not the day? He is the man so conformed to the mind of Christ, that he needs no carnal ordinances to kindle spiritual feelings, seeing he is, as it were, in heaven already. The Sabbath was made for man. The need of it, therefore, is deeply hidden in human nature. He who can dispense with it must be holy and spiritual indeed. And he who, still unholy and unspiritual, would yet dispense with it, would fain be wiser than his Maker.

(b) No man, therefore, who knows himself or the need of his brethren will wantonly desecrate it. And no such man can look with aught but grave apprehensions on a scheme which will invite millions to an unreligious use of the day of rest.

(2) To the religious nonobservance of the Sabbath. He who, not observing it, observeth it not to the Lord, feels that Christ has made him free and strives to live all his days in the spirit. But he who, not trying to serve God on any day, gives Sunday to toil or pleasure, his non-observance is not rendered to the Lord. He may be free from superstition; but it is not Christ who has made him free; and Paul would not have said that his liberty is as acceptable as his brothers scrupulosity.

2. Here, then, we are at issue with the defenders of public recreations on the Sabbath-day. With respect to--

(1) The grounds on which they are approved. They claim liberty; but it is not Christian liberty. They demand a license for non-observance; only, it is not nonobservance to the Lord. The abolition of Judaism is not necessarily the establishment of Christianity; to do away with the Sabbath-day in order to substitute the Sabbath of all time given up to God, is well. But to do away with the special rights of God to the Sabbath, in order merely to substitute the rights of pleasure, or of Mammon, or even the license of profligacy, that is not St. Pauls Christian liberty!

(2) The assumption that public places of recreation, which humanise, will therefore Christianise the people. Aesthetics are not religion. It is one thing to civilise and polish; it is another thing to Christianise. The worship of the beautiful is not the worship of holiness; nay, the one may have a tendency to disincline from the ether. It was so in ancient Greece, when the arts debilitated and sensualised the nations heart. No; the change of a nations heart is not to be effected by the infusion of a taste for artistic grace. Not art, but the Cross of Christ.

3. On the other hand, we dissent from those who would arrest such project by petitions to the legislature.

(1) It is a return to Judaism. It may be quite true that such non-observance of the day is only a scheme of mere pecuniary speculation. Nevertheless there is such a thing as a religious non-observance of the day; and we dare not judge another mans servant. We dare not refuse a public concession of that kind of recreation to the poor man which the rich have long not hesitated to take unrebuked. We cannot substitute a statute law for a repealed law of God. We may think that there is much which may lead to dangerous consequences in this innovation; but we dare not treat it as a crime.

(2) Coercion is in danger of injuring the conscience. It is always dangerous to multiply restrictions and requirements beyond what is essential, because men feeling themselves hemmed in, break the artificial barrier with a sense of guilt, and thereby become hardened in conscience and prepared for transgression against commandments which are Divine.

(3) There is a danger of mistaking a positive law, which is one laid down for special purposes, and corresponds with statute laws in things civil, and a moral law, which is one binding for over, which a statute law may declare, but can neither make nor unmake. Now when men are rigorous in regard to laws positive, the tendency is to a corresponding indifference to the laws of eternal right. The Pharisees who observed the Sabbath, and tithed mint, anise, and cummin, neglected justice, mercy, and truth. And so, many a man whose heart swells with what he thinks pious horror when he sees the letter delivered or the train run upon the Sabbath-day, sits calmly in a social circle and scarcely feels uneasy in listening to its slanders, and surveys the relations of the rich and poor in this country, and remains calmly satisfied that there is nothing false in them. No, it may be that God has a controversy with this people. But if judgments are in store for our country, they will fall--not because public permission is given to the working classes for a few hours recreation on the day of rest--but because we prefer pleasure to duty, and traffic to honour; and because we love our party more than our Church, and our Church more than our Christianity; and our Christianity more than truth, and ourselves more than all. (F. W. Robertson, M.A.)

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.--

Christian liberty

1. Under the Christian dispensation much is left to the determination of a mans own conscience.

2. He must, however, be fully persuaded in his own mind--whatsoever is not of faith is sin.

3. It follows this liberty may not be infringed by the dictation of others. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Christian liberty

I. Its nature--it is the right of determining our own conduct in things indifferent.

II. Its extent. It reaches to all matters--

1. Not determined by the Word of God.

2. Not settled by human relations, or law.

3. Not calculated to offend the consciences of others.

III. Its test.

1. Can we do it to the glory of God?

2. Can we give God thanks? (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Bigotry

1. There had been a hot discussion upon the subject of dietetics. There were some vegetarians who quarrelled with those who thought it right to eat flesh. Paul decides the matter, Now, let this quarrel stop. You men who want to eat herbs, eat herbs. You men who want to eat flesh, eat it. Your own consciences must rule: Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

2. This lays down a principle applicable to ten thousand cases of conscience. The religious world is divided into a great variety of sects. While our conscience will not allow us to choose some of these beliefs, we must allow to others the liberty of conscience which we demand for ourselves.

3. The air and the sea keep pure by constant circulation, and there is a tendency in religious discussion towards moral health. Between the fourth and sixteenth century the Church proposed to keep down all error by prohibiting free discussion; but the world has found out that you cannot change mens beliefs by twisting off their heads. Let error run! Only let the truth run with it, and in the long run truth will win.

4. A king who had a great deal of trouble with his subjects was afterwards imprisoned, and to while away the time he made watches and clocks, and tried to make the watches tick alike, and the clocks strike alike. Of course he failed. Then he said to himself: What a very foolish king I was! How could I expect to make all my subjects alike?

I. The causes of bigotry.

1. Wrong education in the home. There are some who caricature and throw slurs upon other denominations in family circle and produce little bigots ten years old.

2. The superior power of any one denomination. People think that all other churches are wrong, and that theirs is right, because it happens to be more fashionable, wealthy, or influential.

3. Ignorance. Knowledge enlarges the mind. A thorough bigot is the man who thinks he knows a great deal, but does not. In the East there is an obelisk; one side of it is white, another blue, another green. Some travellers went to look at that obelisk, and soon got into a fierce contest--one saying that it was white, another blue, etc. Stop this contest, said some one. I walked all round, and find you are all right and all wrong. If there is any man to he pitied, it is the man who has just one idea in his head.

II. Its evils.

1. It cripples investigation. The different denominations were intended, by holy rivalry and honest competition, to keep each other wide awake. While each denomination ought to preach all the doctrines of the Bible, I think that it is the mission of each more emphatically to preach some one doctrine, e.g., the Calvinistic Church to preach the sovereignty of God, the Arminian mans free agency, the Episcopal the importance of order and solemn ceremony, the Baptist the necessity of ordinances, the Congregational the individual responsibility of its members, the Methodist holy enthusiasm; but when one says, All others are wrong, and I am right, from the realm of Gods truth, over which the archangel might fly from eternity to eternity without touching the limits, they shut themselves out, and die like blind moles under a corn-sheaf.

2. It prejudices people against Christianity. The perpetual bombardment of other sects drives men away from religion. You go down the street and you see a contest and hear the report of firearms. You are not foolish enough to go through that street.

3. It hinders the Churchs triumph. How much wasted energy! Suppose there were a common enemy riding up the Narrows to-morrow morning, and our batteries around New York were to fire into each other, you would cry out, National suicide! And yet while all the navies of darkness have been riding up the bay, sect has been warring with sect, and belief with belief, and there has been suicide instead of conquest.

III. How to cure it.

1. By a realisation of our own infirmities and weakness. If we make so many mistakes upon other things, ought we not to be a little modest in regard to our religious belief?

2. By dwelling chiefly upon those things on which we agree, rather than upon those in which we differ. The gospel platform is large enough to hold all who put their trust in our Lord Jesus Christ.

3. By realising that all denominations of Christians have yielded beneficent institutions and noble men, and therefore are to be respected. One gave to the world a Robert Hall and an Adoniram Judson; another gave a Latimer and a Melvill; another a Wesley and a Summerfield, etc.

4. By toiling in Christian work with men of other beliefs. Here are two men in hostility. Let them go and kneel by that dying woman and commend Christ to her soul. If they went into that room with antipathies, they will come out with love. (T. De Witt Talmage, D.D.)

The value of a firm conviction of the right

I. To ourselves.

1. We act on fixed principles.

2. Are preserved from wavering.

3. Secure inward peace.

II. To others.

1. They know with whom they have to do.

2. Can put confidence in us.

3. Derive benefit from our example. (J. Lyth, D.D.)

Strong convictions in religion

The apostle teaches that in every circumstance we should have a firm conviction as to duty, and act accordingly. We should reach conclusions concerning right and wrong upon our own responsibility.

I. The prevailing want of strong religious convictions.

1. Pauls faith was not a vague, cloudy sentiment, but his very life. He was not a fanatic; yet he was willing to even die for his principles. The martyrs of the early church--Savonarola, Huss, Wiclif, Luther, Calvin, the Puritans--furnish examples of people governed by strong convictions in the sphere of faith and practice.

2. It is to be feared that most Christians are not characterised by such earnest convictions in our day. The masses do not think; they let the press do their thinking for them. It is too possible to have our editors, lecturers, professors, and preachers do our thinking for us. This intellectual lassitude is especially blameworthy in religion. Sunday-school teachers should strive to have views of their own concerning Bible subjects, not relying implicitly upon any mere lesson helps. Church members should cultivate independence, depth and earnestness of thought. We are each, in our separate personalities, to stand before the judgment-seat of Christ. We are to be judged for our thinking and acting; not for those of others.

II. Incentives to the cultivation of strong religious convictions.

1. A person of strong religious convictions will be an active figure in life. This explains the prominence in the anti-slavery movement of men like Wendell Phillips, Whittier, and Beecher. Followers of Christ, with an intense belief in the need and power of the gospel, will be inside the vineyard instead of standing in the market-place idle.

2. The possession of strong religious convictions gives the believer a purpose in life, gives life a meaning and a definite end. To live for Christ, to believe in that life is to have life directed to a definite port, to supply compass, quadrant, chart, helm, and pilot, to keep it in the straight line through waves and storm till the voyage is over. No life was ever a failure that was genuinely lived for Christ.

3. Truth is promoted where emphatic views of things prevail. The hardest class of hearers are those who have no opinions and do not care what the truth is. A mind which tends to earnest thinking is like fertile soil. It may be full of weeds now; but even that is better than a soil that will support no life whatever. A sea-captain would rather encounter an opposing breeze than to be held in a dead calm. (G. F. Greene.)

Be true to yourself

I. There are circumstances under which this exhortation has a peculiar meaning.

1. As a young artist, lawyer, doctor, etc., enters upon his profession, advisers gather about him, and some kind, thoughtful old man says, I have but one thing to say to you, be true to yourself.

2. At times communities sink down into a sort of dead contentment. Enterprise is, comparatively speaking, unknown; men read little and think less; religion, for the most part, is a repetition of things, and everything goes on in a servile and ignoble routine. Now, under such circumstances, it is a wholesome thing for a man to stir men up, and inspire them with curiosity, and make them long for other views of truth, and nobler ideals of life. Then, when there is resurrection from sloth, stupidity, and base conformity to a vulgar life, there is power in the maxim, Be true to yourself.

II. To be true to yourself you must understand that there is a devilish and a Divine self in every man.

1. Now the lower animal self no man can afford to be true to. Shall you say to a man who lives for eating and drinking, or to an old miser, Be true to yourself? Fidelity to self has been their damnation. One man is true to himself: he is a peacock. Another man is true to himself: he is a monkey. Another man is true to himself: he is a lion, or a tiger, or a bear. I say, in regard to your whole lower self, Deny, discipline, educate, restrain that self.

2. But then, there is a Divine self. God comes into our consideration. Our mind takes in a nobler sphere, a larger range. Now, in regard to this higher self, be true to it.

(1) Every child who comes out of his fathers house should be exhorted, Be true to yourself, as a man of honour. The spirit of honour is one of the things without which society would be bankrupt. No man, therefore, ought to go into society without having it. I love to hear a man, where there is occasion for it, say, Do you doubt my honour, sir? It is not best that he should talk much about it, or boast of it; but he ought to have it, and it should be fashioned on those elements which constitute a Christian gentleman. Sir Philip Sidney Was considered a perfect gentleman; but not, I take it, on such a pattern as 1Co_13:1-13 prescribes. Oh that I could make a bath of that chapter, and roll men in it till the colour struck through and through! What perfect gentlemen I would make of them! This is a thing of education. It is a work for the table and for the nursery. It is a process which we are to carry along with religious instruction. Young men! do not adopt that base and servile maxim, When you are in Rome do as Romans do. You might as well say to a man, Among foxes do as foxes do; among wolves do as wolves do; among lions do as lions do. No; be a man always and everywhere; and never forget that the more sensitive your honour the better for you. And if others are unlike you, let your light so shine that men shall see in your religion the type of higher character.

(2) Cultivate conscience, too, which is something more comprehensive than honour.

(a) Do you tell me that you cannot get along and be an honest man? I say that you cannot afford to get along then. I reply to you as Talleyrand replied to a man who said, Why, you know I must live--I do not see that. Do you say, I must have money? Ah! that ends it for you. They that will be rich, says the apostle, fall into temptation and a snare. The love of money is the root of all evil. If you cannot maintain your integrity and succeed, less success with a clear conscience will bring you more happiness. And success surely comes with conscience in the long run, other things being equal. Capacity and fidelity are commercially profitable qualities.

(b) Be true to yourself, also, as a consciencebearer against ridicule. Many a man from fear of this goes aside from what he understands to be the truest and best things. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Do not comply with others opinions unless they commend themselves to your judgment. Do that which you think is right, whatever others may say or think.

(c) Be true to yourself against sympathetic bias through your best affections. We hear people who have done what they knew was wrong say: I could not say No, and disoblige one who has been so kind to me. No one ever became a full man without some cross-bearing.

(d) Be true to your conscience against all those society compliances which may be easy and pleasant, but which in the end lower the tone of your manhood and self-respect.

(3) Be true to yourself, likewise, as a Christian man--a man according to the pattern of Christ Jesus. Be true to that manhood which has for its father, God; for its friend, Christ; for its light, the Holy Ghost. Conclusion: In attempting to be true to yourself, beware of conceit, narrow-mindedness, indecent haste, of that laziness which refuses to read or think, of that presumption which leads you to suppose you can safely depart from the results of centuries of experience. So be true to yourself, not in any vandal spirit, but with humility and meekness, with teachableness, with yearnings for a higher and better life. (H. W. Beecher.)

Christian casuistry

1. There are questions relating to the degree of our conformity to the world, and to the share it is lawful to take in its company and amusements, about which there is the greatest indecision from the absence of any decisive principle of authority to bear upon them. And so the mind fluctuates, for while one class dogmatises with all the readiness of minds that are thoroughly made up, others wait till a clear reason approve itself to their judgments, ere they utter a confident deliverance.

2. When the renunciation of these things is laid down for the observance of the young disciple in the shape of so many categorical impositions--

I. It is very possible that he may be thereby misled as to the design and nature of Christianity.

1. For these acts of abstemiousness occupy the place of works, and may minister the complacency of self-righteousness. And, besides, they are such acts as do not necessarily imply any graceful or elevated morality, and may be the mere heartless austerities of Pharisaical devoteeship--the morose penances of one who denies himself that gratification which he nevertheless is still most desirously set upon. So Christianity instead of a religion of freedom, because her only control is that of heavenly principle over delighted votaries, may be transformed into a narrow system of bigotry, whose oppressive mandates of touch not, taste not, handle not, bear no relation whatever to the spiritual department of our nature.

2. For this reason it is greatly better, with every young inquirer at least, to begin at the beginning--to aim a blow at the root of his corruption, instead of mangling and lacerating at one of its branches; instead of charging him with a matter of doubtful criminality, to put it direct to his conscience, whether the world, or He who made it, has the greatest ascendency over him. After having reached his convictions on this point we would tell him that the thing for adjustment was not the habitual attendance of his person upon places of amusement. We should rather move the previous question--or proceed to the order of the day. The point of immediate urgency is his general state with God. Our indictment is not that he has been incidentally seen in places which lie without the territory of sacredness, but that from that territory he is wholly an outcast and a wanderer.

3. On the personal settlement of this question a great personal change takes place. Other glories than those of this worlds splendour now engage the affections; and other paths than those of this worlds dissipations are now the ways of pleasantness. It may not, however, be with the fierce intolerance of a bigot that he looks on the amusements of other days, but simply with the indifference of one who has found his way to higher and better amusements. And should the result be that he keeps himself from the ball-room or the theatre, this result is only one among the many.

II. It gives to the general eye an appearance of narrowness to our religion which really does not belong to it.

1. Better surely to impregnate the mans heart first with the taste and spirit of our religion; and then, if this should supersede the taste and affection for the frivolities of life, it impresses a far nobler character of freeness and greatness, than when it is merely a reluctant compliance with a rigid exaction of what seems to be an unreasonable intolerance. Better that it spring up, in kindly vegetation from the soil of the new nature, than be forced forward at the call of an uncompromising or unmeaning dogmatism. The new wine that was put into old bottles had not yet done with its fermentation; and the bottles that had lost their elasticity did not expand to the process, but burst, so that both wine and bottles were destroyed. And the same may often be the result of prematurely putting into an unregenerated man those new observations which are in most pleasing accordancy with the whole desire and habit of an altogether Christian. When the new wine is put into a new bottle, both are preserved. The commandment to renounce the amusements of the world ceases to be grievous, or rather ceases to be necessary. He is taken up with something else that he likes better. As the new wine is suited to the new bottle, so are the present habits of the present heart of the new creature in Jesus Christ our Lord. The reply that was once given by an aged Christian to the question of an anxious beginner whether he should now continue to go to the theatre was that he might go as long as he could. And was this not greatly better than admitting him to doubtful disputation?

2. But still it may be asked, Is it not true that in all the amusements referred to the spirit of earthliness has the predominancy; and that the places where they are held, leave their company on the broad way? Grant this to be true, and that all these assemblages were broken up and their visitors dispersed, these visitors may still keep on the broad way; and we cannot see what is gained by drawing thousands away from the theatre and ball-room, if they shall all tarry at any point short of the conversion of their souls. We should feel as if nothing had been effected by pulling any one away from the theatre, if we had not pulled them across the mighty line of separation that marks off the region of grace from the region of unconverted nature. Whitfield once preached for several days at one of the great London fairs, and we may be sure that he was not content with denouncing with intemperate and untimely zeal as a gross abomination the scenes of madness wherewith he was surrounded. He went there charged with the gospel, and his errand was not to put down one of the modifications of worldliness, but all worldliness. He did not break up the fair, but he did a great deal better, he gathered out of it a harvest for eternity.

3. To intrude a sermon now into any place of amusement would be impossible, and could not be tolerated. But among her other caprices fashion has been known to send her votaries to church; and to vary by a sermon on the Sabbath the giddy round of her week-day entertainments. And should any of her enamoured followers be now listening, we would have them to know that it is not with any of those entertainments that we are holding controversy. We are charged with one far more tremendous. Our direct affirmation, and let them carry it to their consciences and try it there, is, that they live without God in the world; and that in the whirl of times gratifications and concerns, they have buried all effective consideration of eternity. Be first Christians, and then we may satisfy your curiosity about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of theatres. Conclusion: A heart with rightly-set affections and desires is the best of casuist. If the heart in its various regards be as it ought, this is our securest guarantee that the history in its various manifestations will be as it ought. The new-born desire of a Christianised heart is worth the catalogue of a thousand solutions to a thousand perplexities. We need scarcely speak on the details of Sabbath observation to him who already loves that hallowed day. Give us a heart set on the things that are above, and what call for warning against the amusements of the world the man who in the midst of higher and better engagements feels their utter insipidity! (T. Chalmers, D.D.)

The Biblical Illustrator, edited by Joseph S. Exell (c. 1880s–1900s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 14:5-6. And with respect to days, one man esteemeth one day above another — Thinks that the new moons and Jewish festivals are holier than other days, and ought still to be observed. Another esteemeth every day alike — Holds that the difference of days appointed by Moses has now ceased. The Jewish holydays only being the subject of controversy, what the apostle hath here written concerning them cannot be extended to the sabbath, instituted at the creation, nor to the Christian sabbath, the Lord’s day. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind — That a thing is lawful before he does it, or well satisfied as to the grounds of his practice, that so he may not knowingly offend God. He that regardeth the day — That observes these new moons and festivals; regardeth it unto the Lord — That is, out of a principle of conscience toward God, and with a view to his glory. And he that regardeth not the day — That does not make conscience of observing it; to the Lord he doth not regard it — He also acts from a principle of conscience, and aims at God’s glory. He that eateth — Indifferently of all meats; eateth to the Lord — Endeavours to glorify him, as it becomes a good Christian to do. For he giveth God thanks — For the free use of the creatures, and for his Christian liberty respecting them. And he that eateth not — The food which the law forbids; to the Lord — Out of respect to God’s commands, he eateth not, and giveth God thanks — For his herbs, or that other food is provided, on which he may conveniently subsist, and that he is not forced to eat what he thinks unclean, out of absolute necessity.

Joseph Benson's Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1811–1818) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

CRITICAL NOTES

Rom_14:5.—Here the seventh day, Sabbath, is included, but not the Christian Sunday, which was of apostolic authority, and has plainly divine sanction, and is a continuation of the Adamic Sabbath. Let every man be fully persuaded, act with full persuasion, that what he does is right. Let him have conviction founded on examination. Every man is bound to obey his conscience, but let conscience be properly enlightened and prompted by love to the Lord of the Sabbath. In the words κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν, says Olshausen, is expressed the original apostolic view, which did not distinguish particular festivals, because to it the whole life of Christ had become a festival. As, however, the season of the Church’s prime passed away, the necessity could not but at the same time have again made itself felt of giving prominence to points of festival light in the general current of every-day life.

Rom_14:6.—Each must seek to do what he conscientiously believes to be the Lord’s will.

MAIN HOMILETIC S OF THE PARAGRAPH.—Rom_14:5-6

Variety of opinion, unity of spirit.—There may be no direct allusion to the Christian Sunday in this passage, and there may be no pronouncement either for or against the observance of a fixed day, as there is no declaration against either eating or not eating. Why the apostle did not say it is good to keep the Christian Sunday when he said, “It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor anything whereby thy brother stumbleth,” we cannot tell. But we find that he lays down a principle which should lead every right mind to the religious observance of one day in seven. He allows variety of opinion; he enforces unity of spirit, and that spirit is that all is to be done unto the Lord. If anything be left undone, it is thus left because the omission will work more truly to God’s glory. Can it be truly said and successfully maintained that the abrogation of Sunday observance will tend to the glory of God? Do our Sunday pleasure-takers and our Sunday business men either enter the excursion train, indulge in their pleasures, or pursue their secular avocations “unto the Lord”?

I. The spirit of consecration asks for full persuasion.—

1. Now full persuasion cannot be obtained without serious examination. And that process cannot be called serious examination which comes to the consideration of the divine word with preconceived views. People who work on these lines say they are willing to be enlightened. Their willinghood is doubtful, for they never find any teachers skilful enough to enlighten. Has a man given serious examination to this passage who says, That is all right; St. Paul advocates all days alike. No rigid sabbatarianism for me. Let me have liberty of opinion? Is not this man treated ironically by St. Paul? How can a man discern every day? There is no longer any distinction when all are distinguished. To set apart every day as holy is no longer to sanctify any one specially. To consecrate all our substance unto the Lord, and to refuse to “render unto Cæsar the things that are Cæsar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s,” is a plain contradiction. Would an income-tax collector allow a man to escape on the plea that all his income is consecrated to the Queen? The tribute of days as well as the tribute of money should be consecrated unto the Lord.

2. Serious examination cannot be conducted without consideration of all the evidence. It would not be admissible in the court of law that evidence should not be adduced, and it must not be admitted in the court of conscience. We must carefully consider the cases of those who distinguish one day in seven and those who distinguish all days, and ask which class shows more emphatically that they are ruled and actuated by the spirit of consecration unto the Lord. The inner spirit is known by the outer life. “By their fruits ye shall know them.” The inner spirit of consecrating all our days is shown by the outer life of consecrating unto the Lord one day in seven. The inner spirit of love is shown by the outer deed of love. It breaks the alabaster box of ointment of spikenard very precious, and pours it on the head of the predestined victim. It might have been sold and given to the poor, says selfishness. Love says, No; it must be consecrated to this highest service. Selfishness says, The true spirit is to consecrate all days to noble endeavours. Let there be no empty sentiment; let there be no waste of time according to priestly ordering. Love says, No; one day in seven must be consecrated to the service of the All-loving, that so all days may be ennobled, that so in the recurring days the loving heart may pour itself out in an unrestrained stream of devotion. The love of some men rises above their creed. They advocate all days alike, and yet they sacredly keep their Sundays.

II. The spirit of consecration is fully persuaded of the wisdom of observing fixed days.—Lest the Sabbatarian may be said to come to the consideration of the divine word and of the divine ordinances with preconceived views, it may be needful to show that such views are not hastily formed. All the evidence which can be adduced goes to prove that Sunday is indispensable to the establishment and propagation of Christianity in the world. Let us then bring forward some of the advantages of a fixed day of rest to both the individual and the community. We doubt not that there have evils arisen from the observance of Sunday as a day of rest. But where are we to find the unmixed good? The tares and the wheat will grow together, farm we never so carefully. Shall we give up growing wheat because we cannot prevent the springing up of tares? Shall we cease the work of trying to join good men in Christian communities because hypocrites will appear? Nay, verily. The abuse of a custom does not nullify its wise use. The perversion of an institution does not abrogate its authority and its necessity. Our Sunday must abide, though it may have attendant evils; and yet the evils are few and fanciful. They are the evils of depraved human nature rather than the evils of the day of rest; while the blessings are real and manifold.

1. A fixed, day of rest and of religious observance fences humanity, at least that part of humanity that does not break through the Sabbath hedge; and such violators place themselves in the dangerous position of being exposed to the bite of the serpents that lurk on the outside of the sacred enclosure. Still the Sunday fence is more extended than we sometimes think. It has warded off much evil even from the heads of those who flout its protective qualities. Those who make merry at the expense of the righteous, and try to show that more evil happens to the Sabbath observer than to the Sabbath breaker, should bear in mind that the latter is moving under the protecting shield of the former. In this world the wicked even are benefited by the sufferings and the virtue of the righteous. Ten righteous would have saved a cityful, but there were not ten to be found. The true Sunday observers form a small proportion of the nation, but they are its protection. The sound stones in the national fabric may be few, but they prevent a national collapse. The Sunday fence encloses and benefits even the perverse; and much more does it benefit the faithful and the obedient. The Sunday observer is forced from the intrusion of business, from the calls of secular life, and from the attacks of so-called pleasure.

2. A day of rest and religious observance helps human weakness. It is a strange feature of our nature that it should be averse to religion and yet cannot get away from it. Even in regenerate men there are adverse forces at work, and when they would do good evil is present. Two opposite forces are at work in the soul, one set drawing to religion and to goodness, and the other drawing in an opposite direction. What a constant strife rages in the town of Man-soul! The world within a man, even of a good man, is not all on the side of good. And the world outside the man is not engaged to help him forward to moral victory. The powers of evil and good are continually striving for the mastery, and we often fear that the good will be worsted in the encounter; yea, we too often find that evil conquers and the man is dethroned. This being so we cannot wisely dispense with any help which may be available to render the contest successful. A fixed day of rest is a valuable help by the way which cannot be ignored. And we may regard it not as a mere secondary but as a primary help. It is the source of much precious assistance. It brings more vividly before the mind the feeling of our personal responsibility and our immortal destiny. In the secular days we are apt to be of the earth earthy; while the manifest tendency of the Sunday is to raise above the earth, and thus we are strengthened for further conflict. Ask any good man to give up his Sunday. The request would be absurd. As well ask the soldier to give up his weapons of defence in the day of battle, the sailor to abandon the life-buoy when battling with the waves. The Sunday provides invisible weapons of defence, and is a sustaining force amid life’s dark billows and howling tempests. It is helpful to the weak, and the strongest require its gracious aids.

3. A day of rest and religious worship furthers noble endeavour. The language of the good man is, “I will endeavour.” He is not either vain-glorious or insanely self-reliant. When despair rests upon the human soul, one little ray of hope piercing the darkness will do a world of good. “I will endeavour” is apostolic language, and is a suitable motto for the man struggling to the upward heights. Sunday refreshes and recruits the weary spirit of the endeavouring man. He has made many endeavours, and has failed; but Sunday teaches that what are called failures in the moral battle are not all failures if we are still found in the pathway of endeavour. It can give higher motives for perseverance, encourages to further action, and assures final victory to the faithful.

4. A fixed day of rest and religious worship provides a blessed outlook. It opens a large prospect which must be invigorating. The pilgrims in their journey went up the Delectable Mountains to behold the gardens and orchards, the vineyards and fountains of water. There they drank and washed themselves, and did freely eat of the vineyards. Then the shepherds had the pilgrims to the top of a high hill called Clear, from which could be seen the gates of the celestial city. Sundays are as the Delectable Mountains, where are gardens and orchards, vineyards and fountains of water. Here weary pilgrims can drink and freely eat and be refreshed. Amongst these mountains is many a hill Clear, from which, if we have the skill and the glass of faith, we may see the gates of the celestial city. Sunday is the high hill Clear towering above all other days. Even when the hands shake as the glass is held by reason of our remembrance of life’s perplexities, we may see farther than on any other day. We cannot do without our hills and mountains; they impress with a sense of the sublime. Much less can we part with our Sundays, the Delectable Mountains of time; they often show us the opened gates of heaven. We look in through those pearly gates, and behold the city shines like the sun; the streets also are paved with gold; and in them walk many men with crowns on their heads, palms in their hands, and golden harps to sing praises withal.

III. The spirit of consecration is persuaded that the Christian Sunday is the substance which glorifies the shadow.—The shadow often consists of dim and imperfect outlines. The sketch is a rough draft of the perfect picture which is to appear, and much work, skill, and patience will be required before the production is completed. Now the Sabbath of Eden and of Sinai is regarded by some as a rude sketch; though we consider that it is something more than a mere cloudy and disproportioned shadow, we may still consider it as a shadow, and remark that the Sabbath of the Old Testament is glorified by the Christian Sunday.

1. The substance glorifies the shadow by intensifying its beneficent aspect. The careful reading of the fourth commandment shows what a beneficent precept it is. It enjoins benevolent considerateness for all within the range of our influence. It treats for the physical and moral welfare of the human creature, and touches the brute creature with kind and gentle hand. And the divine Founder of Christianity intensifies this beneficent aspect. Those watchwords of the sabbatic controversy, “The Sabbath was made for man,” unfold the Saviour’s idea. Some of the most remarkable of His miracles were performed on this day. Wherever the Christian Sunday has been properly worked it has been a beneficent force. The physical evils of modern society are still many, but the amelioration of those evils has been due to the advance of Christian principles stimulating the movements of a true science. Sunday is one of the great means of keeping those principles before the world. It is a beneficent institution which has either directly or indirectly promoted and nurtured most of our modern benevolent enterprises.

2. The substance glorifies the shadow by giving to it a rich spiritual tone. Some read the fourth commandment as if it were a mere regimen of physical rest for those who felt no need of and had no desire for spiritual rest. This, however, is to read the commandment superficially. The seventh day is to be kept holy, and this cannot be done by mere idleness. The true refreshing repose for body and soul is to be found in spiritual employments. The highest repose is enjoyed by the angels, and yet they rest not day nor night. Jesus Christ, by reproving the unauthorised sabbatic restrictions of the Jews, declares the spiritual nature of the Sabbath. It is a day to be observed spiritually, and was thus observed by the apostles and first founders of the Christian Church. St. John gives emphasis to this idea when he says, “I was in the Spirit on the Lord’s day.” This may mean a special spiritual influence, a pneumatic condition, when great disclosures were made. Nevertheless every Christian seeking to keep the Lord’s day aright will in his measure come under spiritual influence and have his divine manifestations to the soul. Here it may be noted that the expiassions “the Lord’s day” and “the first day of the week” indicate that this first day was one of public social worship amongst Christians in the apostolic age. The appellation “Lord’s day” occurs nowhere in the New Testament except in this passage. But it occurs twice in the Epistle of Ignatius, who calls it “the Lord’s day—the queen and prince of days.” Chrysostom says, “It was called the Lord’s day because the Lord arose from the dead on that day.” Eusebius in his commentary on the Psalms says: “The Word (Christ) by the new covenant translated and transferred the feast of the Sabbath to the morning light, and gave us the symbol of true rest—viz., the saving Lord’s day, the first day of the light in which the Saviour obtained the victory over death. On this day, which is the first day of the light and the true sun, we assemble after an interval of six days, and celebrate holy and spiritual Sabbath; even all nations assemble redeemed by Him throughout the world, and do those things according to the spiritual laws which were decided by the priests to do on the Sabbath. All things whatever it was the duty to do on the Jewish Sabbath we have transferred to the Lord’s day, as more appropriately belonging to it, because it has a precedence and is first in rank and more honourable than the Jewish Sabbath. It is delivered to us that we should meet together on this day, and it is ordered that we should do those things announced in Psalms 92.” Dr. Whewell in his Elements of Morality says: “In points on which the evidence of apostolic and catholic usage is complete, a Christian or a body of Christians has no liberty to alter the mode of observance. As an example of this, it appears to be inconsistent with Christian duty for any community to alter the day of religious observance from the first to any other day of the week, as Calvin is said to have suggested to the city of Geneva to do, in order that they might show their Christian liberty in regard to ordinances. If to do this were within the limits of Christian liberty, it would likewise be so to alter the period of the recurrence of the day and to observe every fifth day or every tenth, as was appointed in France when Christianity was rejected.”

3. The substance glorifies the shadow by showing that ceremonies do not avail without spiritual life. Here substance and shadow coincide, for Isaiah says: “The new moons and Sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot away with; it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting.” And why? Because the oblations were vain, the hands spread out in prayer were full of blood. We must cease to do evil and learn to do well before we can keep acceptable feasts. We must, in fact, seek to be more spiritual. However, let us not cry, Away with forms and ceremonies! “Of what use are forms, seeing that at times they are empty? Of the same use as barrels, which at times are empty too.” They must be permeated with the spirit of Christ. Now Christianity does not permeate evil with good, for it cannot turn wickedness into righteousness and transform sin into holiness. It can permeate our evil nature by driving out sin and introducing holiness. Its motive power stimulates to action; its aim is to overcome evil by good through the destruction or banishment of evil and by the supremacy of good. It desires to transfuse the peaceful and refreshing spirit of the day of rest into all other days; but this cannot be done by its practical destruction. It does not call other days evil because it makes Sunday a special day. Christianity does not attribute moral qualities to days. In this sense every day may be alike. However, moral qualities may be brought to the observance of days, and in this manner certain days may be rendered sacred. It is observable that in the book of Exodus it is said, “And God blessed the Sabbath day,” not, as in our Prayer Book, the seventh day; and thus God dedicates a day of rest. Let us bless our Sabbath day by bringing to its observance our highest powers, our best spiritual endeavours, our earnest prayerful preparation, and thus it will be to us a blessing. In blessing Sunday we bless ourselves and bless our kind. In praising Sunday we praise and exalt Sunday’s Lord, and angels join to swell our chorus of praise.

IV. The spirit of consecration says that Christ is the master.—“For none of us liveth to himself, and no man dieth to himself. For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord.” What, then, is the force of these words? “It means,” saith St. Chrysostom, “that we are not free; we have a Master who would have us live, and willeth not that we die, and to whom both of these are of more interest than to us. For by what is here said He shows that He hath a greater concern for us than we have for ourselves, and considereth more than we do, as well our life to be wealth as our death to be a loss. For we do not die to ourselves alone, but to our Master also, if we do die.” Christ, the kind master, has watched over the Church, and has preserved to us the day of rest. We are not free to destroy the sacred treasure. His concern for our spiritual welfare is so great that He has made the institution of Sunday the one institution that should be strikingly prominent and should exert a miraculous influence. We are Christ’s property, redeemed by His precious blood. We are under all circumstances, living or dying, eating or abstaining, observing days or not observing them, Christ’s—His redeemed people. Let us joyfully keep Sunday, and seek to make it a bright and happy day, and thus cause it to be regarded with favour by all the true-hearted.

Rom_14:6. A bright and happy day.—The Sabbatarian regards the Sunday as a day unto the Lord as well as from the Lord. To make of the Lord’s day a merely ecclesiastical institution is to deprive it of its highest sanction and divest it of universal and binding authority amongst a free people. The presence of the fourth commandment in the Decalogue, the recognition of the obligation to keep the Sabbath by our Lord, as well as a true conception of the relation of the law to the Christian dispensation, is against the sweeping view that the institution is only binding upon us from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us. We regard Sunday as from the Lord, and keep it as unto the Lord, and believe that He intended it to be a day of true peace, joy, and refreshment. Sunday, then, should be a bright and happy day; for—

I. Gladness is contemplated in divine arrangements.—The Almighty is the God of love, and cannot therefore be the cause of sorrow. Doubtless sadness is a blessing, not in itself, but in its effects under divine guidance. The arrangements of the material world indicate that originally this earth was intended to be a pleasant dwelling-place. It is sin which has brought about the sad change. The final arrangement of the moral world is the dispensation of the gospel; and one of its designs was to give “the oil of joy for mourning and the garment of praise for the spirit of heaviness.” Neither science, nor philosophy, nor cold morality has ever healed the broken in heart; while this has been done by the gospel. And Sunday is the glad day on which many of these good results have been effected. Only the Sabbath of eternity will unfold the blessedness to God’s redeemed which has sprung from the Sabbaths of time.

II. It interrupts the monotony of life.—Life is dull to many, and Sundays come as bright and welcome interruptions. The numbers who practically do without a Sunday, and do not appreciate its high joys and solemnities, rob existence of a great boon. Sunday changes the very quality of the life stream. We drink at secular streams and thirst again, while those who drink at the sacred stream are for ever refreshed.

III. It provides a quiet resting-place.—What the country home does for the city business man each night, that and more may the Sunday do each seventh day—that is, each recurring seventh day. It should shut out business cares and toils, and secure a quiet resting-place amid wearing activities. Sunday rest may confer a benefit which is not at all times properly appreciated, because all the circumstances of the case are not duly considered. Our thoughts are turned into new channels and our energies in fresh directions. Sunday should be a recruiting period from the battle, a quiet resting-place from the struggles, of modern existence.

IV. It promotes enlargement of nature.—Humboldt has well observed that an introduction to new and grand objects of nature enlarges the human mind. Now Sunday should introduce to new and grand objects of nature and supernature. It opens out all worlds. We may study both the natural and the spiritual. Sunday is a high peak on the level landscape of time from which we may view eternal vastnesses. It enables us to rise out of our narrow sphere and look beyond our narrow surroundings. It may teach how little are the thoughts and pursuits of men, and how infinitely vast are the thoughts of God. Without its help we are dwarfed, while by its kindly processes we are enlarged. Its visions of glory and its sounds of sweetness make glad.

V. It furthers the greater compactness of society.—In these days we hear from some quarters a good deal about the solidarity of the race, by which is understood a union of interests, of sympathies, and of pursuits. Now the only lasting unions for human societies are the outcome of the working of divine institutions. Sunday is the appointment of divine benevolence, and one of its gracious purposes is the reconstruction of the human race, so as to bind it together in one family bond under the guidance and protection of one all-loving and beneficent Father. Sunday’s legitimate working is not towards the destruction of distinctions in society, but towards the blending of such distinctions, so that society may move along harmoniously. As this day gives completeness to the week, so it gives compactness to society.

VI. It furnishes stated times for public religious worship.—Man is a creature made to worship, and must have a God. “Religion,” says Emerson, “is as inexpugnable as the use of lamps, or of wells, or of chimneys. We must have days, and temples, and teachers.” Infidelity may reign for a time; still it cannot long hold against the instincts and cravings for worship found in human nature. So far infidelity has not gained a widespread dominion. There is a demand for religion, and the heart of man cries out for the living God. There is a demand for worship which can only be stifled by sensuality and wickedness. Where these are not allowed to gain the mastery, where there is any spiritual development, there is both a desire for and a great pleasure in public religious worship. It must be so, for man is also a social being, and this arrangement helps to satisfy the social instincts of his nature. We miss the glad design and blessing of the Sunday if we do not engage in religious worship. They that thus honour the Lord’s day will be amply rewarded.

VII. Many have found Sunday a happy day for Christian work.—The Christian’s secular work should be done in a spiritual fashion and to the glory of God; but the Christian welcomes Sunday because it furnishes opportunities of more directly promoting the moral welfare of mankind. He is benevolent, and Sunday must be a bright and happy day because it provides channels through which the waters of benevolence can freely flow. How happy the home where the Christian Sunday cheers and where the Christian father seeks to gladden! When sorrow darkens the home, Sunday brightness gilds the sorrow-cloud with beautiful colours formed by ray-lights from heaven.

SUGGESTIVE COMMENTS ON Rom_14:5-6

Discrimination of days means setting apart one day.—It has been concluded from these sayings of Paul that the obligation to observe Sunday as a day divinely instituted was not compatible with Christian spirituality, as this was understood by St. Paul. The context does not allow us to draw such a conclusion. The believer who observes Sunday does not in the least do so under the thought of ascribing to this day a superior holiness to that of other days. To him all days are, as the apostle thinks, equal in holy consecration. As rest is not holier than work, no more is Sunday holier than other days. It is another form of consecration, the periodical return of which, like the alternations of sleep and waking, arises from the conditions of our physico-psychical existence. The Christian does not cease to be a man by becoming a spiritual man. And as one day of rest in seven was divinely instituted at the creation on behalf of natural humanity, one does not see why the believer should not require this periodical rest as well as the unregenerate man. “The Sabbath was made for man.” So long as the Christian preserves his earthly nature, this saying applies to him, and should turn not to the detriment but to the profit of his spiritual life. The keeping of Sunday thus understood has nothing in common with the sabbatical observance which divides life into two parts, the one holy, the other profane. It is this legal distinction which Paul excludes in our Rom_14:5 and Colossians 2.—Godet.

Economists laud the Sunday.—Whatever may be men’s theories about the Sunday, it is a remarkable fact, and to us conclusive, that those who are the purest and noblest cling tenaciously to the Sunday. The Christian’s decalogue would not be complete if the fourth commandment were erased. The Christian’s sky would be darkened if Sunday were eclipsed. His days would be gloomy, his passage through lifo as if one were going through an underground tunnel where darkness and malodours prevailed, if the sacred light of the day of rest were extinguished. The Christian has a loving interest in the preservation of Christ’s great day, the Church’s great day. His loving interest is not selfish, for he knows that national prosperity and greatness are identified with the English Sunday. He is not surprised to find that foreigners can see the priceless value of our Sundays. Dr. D’Aubigné says, “Order and obedience, morality and power, are all in Britain connected with the observance of the Sabbath.” La Presse says, “England owes much of her energy and character to the religious keeping of Sunday.” Why cannot France follow her, as the Sabbath was made for all men, and we need its blessing? He is not surprised to hear the great political economist declare that the Sabbath as a political institution is of inestimable value, independently of its claim to divine authority. Sunday is a royal day and makes its adherents kingly. We must both know and do. “If ye know these things, happy are ye if ye do them.” Knowledge is good, but doing is better. Doing right is the bright pathway to truest prosperity and divine kingship.

Sunday a spiritual blessing.—Now though it be true that man was not made for the Sabbath, yet let it never be forgotten that the Sabbath was made for man. Man was not made to move in a precise orbit of times and seasons; yet times and seasons may be arranged so as to subserve his use, and be the ministers of good both to his natural and moral ceremony. Were the keeping of the Sabbath a mere servitude of the body which left the heart no better than before, it would be a frivolous ceremonial, and ought to be exploded. But if it be true that he who sanctifies the Sabbath sanctifies his own soul, then does the Sabbath assume a spiritual importance, because an expedient of spiritual cultivation. The suspension on this day of the labour or business of the world, its scrupulous retirement from the converse or the festivities of common intercourse, its solemn congregations and its evening solitudes—these singly and in themselves may not be esteemed as moralites, and yet be entitled to a high pre-eminence among them from the impulse they give to that living fountain of piety out of which the various moralities of life ever comeforth in purest and most plenteous emanation. It is not that the virtue of man consists in these things, but that these things are devices of best and surest efficacy for upholding the virtue of man. Were it not for this subserviency, the Sabbath might well be swept away; but because of this subserviency, it not only takes its place among the other obligations of Christianity, but is entitled to that reverence which is due, if not to the parent, at least to the foster-mother of them all. If the Sabbath of any one of the primitive Churches obtained not this homage from the apostle, it must have been because it was a Sabbath of ceremonial drudgery and not of spiritual exercise. And you have only to compute the worth and the celestial character of all those graces which have been sheltered and fed and reared to maturity in the bosom of this institution that you may own the high bearing and dignity which belong to it. And the maxim that what may be done at any time is never done applies with peculiar emphasis to every work against which there is a strong constitutional bias, where there is a reluctance to begin it, and the pitching of a strenuous effort to overcome that reluctance, and the pleasant deception all the while that it will just do as well after a little more postponement—a deception which, as it overspreads the whole life, will lead us to put off indefinitely, and this in the vast majority of instances is tantamount to the habit of putting off irrecoverably and for ever. Now this would just be the work of religion when shorn of its Sabbath—a work to embark upon which nature has to arrest her strongest currents, and to shake her out of her lethargies, and to suspend those pursuits to which by all the desires of her existence she is led most tenaciously to cleave, and to struggle for the ascendency of faith over sight, and of a love to the unseen God whom the mind with all the aids of solitude and prayer so dimly apprehendeth, over the love of those things that are in the world, and whose power and whose presence are so constantly and so importunately bearing upon us And will any say that in these circumstances the cause of religion is not bettered by the Sabbath, that weekly visitor coming to our door, and sounding the retreat of every seventh day from the heat and the hurry and the onset of such manifold temptations?—Dr. Chalmers.

A cuneiform inscription.—The Lord’s day, though for us, is not ours, but the Lord’s. We have no right to give it away, or to look on unmoved while it is being taken away. The Sabbath is not simply a Mosaic institution; the very word is found in the oldest cuneiform inscriptions, taking us back to a time before Moses was born. Tablets are in existence which show that thus early, in Ur of the Chaldees, the rest-day of the heart, as it was termed, was kept sacred. Sabbath observance is not a duty so much as a privilege. The Epistle of Barnabas states, “We keep the eighth day for rejoicing, because it is the day on which the Lord rose from the dead.” And that ancient manual The Teaching of the. Twelve Apostles says, “On the Lord’s own day we gather to break bread and give thanks, first confessing our sins, that the sacrifice may be pure.” There is a difference between the rest-day, the preservation of which is the business of the State, and the Lord’s day, which it is the duty of the Church of Christ to protect and to secure.—Canon Girdlestone.

Son of man Lord of the Sabbath day.—Jesus Christ exercised His lordship over the Sabbath day in order that love’s outflow might be unchecked. Those who watched the Saviour’s miracles of healing on the Sabbath day might have learnt how He took them far back to love’s primeval purpose when it created a Sabbath for man. It teaches and enforces the lesson that there is liberty to do right and restraint in the direction of wrong-doing. Jesus Christ moved through this world as love incarnate, and the Sabbath was the blessed shrine in which He made love’s richest display.

I. The Sabbath was created for man, created at the very commencement of human history, and for universal man’s moral and spiritual well-being.—The world was created by the Saviour for humanity’s dwelling-place; and the Sabbath for humanity’s temple. The Sabbath was created for man as the sun was made for man that he might enjoy light, heat, and productiveness; as the sweet interchange of day and night and the revolving seasons were ordained for man to find this earth a pleasant dwelling-place; as the Bible was given for man’s improvement and enrichment; and as heaven is provided for the redeemed as a joyful eternal home after life’s cares, storms, and turmoils. The Sabbath was made for man’s benefit, and it is at his peril that he either trifles with the boon, or presumes to lord it over the beneficent institution. The Son of man, then, is Lord of the Sabbath day, because He is the Son of God and the Creator. Our patriotism and our philanthropy as well as our zeal for the glory of God should impel us to put forth effort for the preservation of our English Sunday.

II. The Sabbath should be honoured in the sweet sacredness of the home.—English domestic life is one of the secrets of England’s greatness, and Sunday is its great upholder and promoter. The scattered members of the family are drawn and bound together by the weekly recurrence of God’s day. If the austere Sabbath keeping of the home has rendered some perverted natures averse to religion, it has had a far different effect on large numbers. Occasionally we are presented with thrilling pictures of clergymen’s sons driven to courses of wickedness by the austerities of Sabbath-keeping houses, but these are the painful exceptions, and the rule is that clergymen’s families thank God for the hallowed sweetness of the parsonage home. And it is to us a cause of deep regret and of grave concern that in our cities the home is only a misnomer as applied to many of the abodes where human beings herd. God’s day rightly regarded and honoured in our homes would produce a most salutary change in the community. The sabbatic haven leavening the whole man would produce an aspect of spiritual beauty which would transform earth and even gladden heaven.

III. The Sabbath should be honoured in the devotional sacredness of the temple.—It is one of the blessings of our land that houses for prayer are erected in our cities, towns, villages, hamlets, and in remote mountain districts where the inhabitants and the excitements are few, and where life would otherwise move along in a dull round and on a low level. Thus our people have nowhere any excuse for dishonouring Sunday by neglecting public worship. The temple of nature is grand and imposing in many parts, but nowhere can it be found to be a substitute for the religious temple. The advocates of worship in the temple of nature have too often much talk and no worship of nature’s Creator. And we miss the great design and blessing of the Sunday if we do not engage in religious worship. They that thus honour the Lord’s day are amply rewarded. They may be raised above the worries of life, and forget for a season their earthly anxieties. And on the Sunday we must go to the temple if we are truly to honour the day and realise its richest experiences and taste its highest blessedness.

IV. The Sabbath is to be honoured in the wholesome sacredness of Christian activities.—It is not our purpose to define the work and to summon the workers to the Lord’s vineyard. Suffice to say that there is plenty of moral work to be done; that the command is issued to every Christian, “Son, go work to-day in My vineyard.” The fields are white unto the harvest, and the cry still is for more labourers. There would not be so much moral dyspepsia, no need to utter vain jeremiads about Sunday’s wasted opportunities, if there were more moral energy. Christians should give out as well as seek to take in on Sunday, and they would receive more if they would seek to impart more. There is that giveth and yet increaseth. The law of spiritual increase is that we do as well as hear. Happy are ye if ye do these things. Thus by a pleasing variety will the Christian Sunday be spent and the Christian be improved.

Sabbath springe from the necessity of religion.—“The Jews gave a reason why man was created in the evening of the Sabbath, because he should begin his being in the worship of His Maker. As soon as ever he found himself to be a creature, his first solemn act should be a particular respect to his Creator. To fear God and keep His commandment is the whole of man, or, as it is in the Hebrew, whole man; he is not a man, but a beast, without observance of God. Religion is as requisite as reason to complete a man. He were not reasonable if he were not religious, because by neglecting religion he neglects the chief dictates of reason. Either God framed the world with so much order, elegance, and variety to no purpose, or this was His end at least, that reasonable creatures should admire Him in it and honour Him for it. The notion of God was not stamped upon man. The shadows of God did not appear in the creatures to be the subject of an idle contemplation, but the motive of a due homage to God. He created the world for His glory, a people for Himself, that He might have the honour of His works. It was the condemnation of the heathen world that, when they knew there was a God, they did not give Him the glory due to Him.” Let us give glory to Him to whom all glory belongs. Let us join the beasts who were full of eyes within, so great their intelligence, who “rest not day nor night, saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come; and the four-and-twenty elders who fell down before Him that sat on the throne, and worshipped Him that liveth for ever and ever, and cast their crowns before the throne, saying, Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for Thou hast created all things, and for Thy pleasure they are and were created.”

Christians unanimously observed the Lord’s day.—Those that thought themselves under some kind of obligation by the ceremonial law, esteemed one day above another, kept up a respect of the times of the Passover, Pentecost, New Moons, and Feast of Tabernacles, thought those days better than other days, and solemnised them accordingly with particular observances, binding themselves to some religious rest and exercise on those days; those who knew all these things were abolished and done away by Christ’s coming, every day alike. We must understand it with an exception of the Lord’s day, which all Christians unanimously observed; but they made no account, took no notice, of these antiquated festivals of the Jews.—Hewes.

Let each act from conviction.—“Let him be fully persuaded in his own mind.” The Jewish convert might keep his Jewish Sabbath and the Gentile Christian might keep his own Christian Sabbath, the one might keep the seventh day and the other might keep the first day of the week, and both be blameless. St. Paul still keeps to the same subject, and what he means is about this: the thing is not concerned about fundamentals, for the thing requisite is, if this person and the other are acting for God’s sake, the thing requisite is, if both terminate in thanksgiving; for, indeed, both this man and that give thanks to God. If, then, both do give thanks to God, the difference is no great one. But let me draw your notice to the way in which here also he aims a blow at the Judaizers; for if the thing required be this, the giving of thanks, it is plain enough that he which eateth it is that giveth thanks, and not he which eateth not; for how should he while he still holds to the law? As, then, he told the Galatians, “As many of you as are justified by the law, are fallen from grace,” so here he hints it only, but does not uphold it so much, for as yet it was not time to do so. But for the present he bears with it; but by what follows he gives it a further opening.—St. Chrysostom.

ILLUSTRATIONS TO CHAPTER 14

Rom_14:5-6. Vessel anchored in a bay.—We have seen a vessel lying at anchor in a well-sheltered harbour while the storm raged furiously in the open sea. The vessel was fenced and protected. What portion of the storm entered the little bay only served to give a gentle motion to the ship, and make mournful music as the wind swept through the cordage. Sunday should be as the fenced-in and protected harbour for the vessel of a good man’s soul. There may be storms without; there should be comparative peace within. The man is anchored within the Sunday bay, and nothing will tempt him to withdraw the anchor and try the ocean of secular life until he is further strengthened and refitted for the tempest by the recruiting influences of a full Sunday. Well is it if he can feel that both himself and his Sunday are fenced by the protecting arms of Him whose love is everlasting. Secular life is full of cares. All life has its deep sorrows. But Sunday should shut out our worldly cares, and fence us in with the love of God. What a consoling message the Sunday carries! It proclaims the gracious truth, He careth for you. The Infinite cares for the finite. We who dwell in houses made of clay are cared for by Him who inhabits the praises of eternity. We who are but insignificant atoms amid the vast systems of worlds have a place in the mindful regards of Him who rolls the stars along and speaks all the promises. Sunday has its sweet voices and its rich music, and within its sacred enclosure we hear the sweet voice of infinite love’s mouth and the rich music of heaven. Welcome, sweet day of rest that enfolds us in its loving arms, that gives rest when we are weary, drink when we are thirsty, and healing balm for aching heads and hearts!

Rom_14:5-6. Lord Salisbury and the Shah.—The Westminster Review would destroy the sacredness of our English Sunday, but the Westminster statesman seeks to maintain that sacredness. “The Shah was grievously disappointed because Lord Salisbury would not allow a dance on Sunday night, and he entirely failed to appreciate the Anglican prejudice against Sunday diversions.” All honour to Lord Salisbury; but what shall we say of him who speaks of an Anglican prejudice? Is he infected with the false notions propounded by the writer of an article named “A rational use of Sunday”? Surely the writer of this article will not commend himself or herself to an enlightened reason. For “A rational use of Sunday” ought to have no statements which might shock a rational nature. And what shall be said to this; “There is indeed a pretty general consensus of opinion among theologians that, to use their own expression, ‘The Sabbath began with Moses and ended with Christ’ ”? We are not aware of such “a general consensus.” A few names on that side might be counted on the fingers. There are many treatises written on the opposite side, while the literature on the side of the “general consens us of opinion” is scanty. If, indeed, there be such a general consensus, it is remarkable that the English Sunday maintains its divine pre-eminence.

Rom_14:6. Wait till reckoning time.—A good old man was much annoyed by the conduct of some of his neighbours who persisted in working on Sundays. On one occasion, as he was going to church, his Sabbath-breaking neighbours called out to him sneeringly from the hayfield, “Well, father, we have cheated the Lord out of two Sundays, any way.” “I don’t know that,” replied the old gentleman,—“I don’t know. The account is not settled yet.”

Rom_14:6. Good hands at an excuse.—I have often wondered at the cleverness with which people make excuses for neglecting heavenly things. A poor woman was explaining to me why her husband did not attend church. “You see poor working folks nowadays are so holden down and wearied out that they are glad to rest a day in the house when Sabbath comes.” An unopened letter was lying on the table, which she asked me to read, believing that it was from her sick mother. It was a notice to her husband that the football team, of which he was captain, was to meet on Saturday at 3 p.m., and that, like a good fellow, he must be forward in good time. And that was the man for whom my pity was asked, as being so worn out with his work that he could hardly creep up to the church! Another woman admitted to me that she never read her Bible, but pleaded that she was too busy and had too many cares. My eye caught a great bundle of journals above the clock. She confessed that these were novels, on which she spent twopence-halfpenny every Saturday, and that she read them on the Sabbath. If you wish an excuse, the smallest thing will give you stuff enough for the weaving of it.—J. Wells.

Rom_14:6. Six parasangs.—Krummacher tells of an Israelite named Boin, a resident of Mesopotamia, whom the Lord called to make a pilgrimage to the land of his fathers. Taking his family, he started westward, through the wilderness. When he was weary with a journey of six parasangs, he came upon a tent by the way, and a man said to him, “Rest here.” When rested the man guided him forth. At the end of six parasangs more he found another tent with refreshments; and so on to the end of his journey in the promised land. The life of man is a pilgrimage. Six parasangs are six days; the seventh is the day of rest, the tent of refreshment by the way. The fool passes by the tent, and perishes in the wilderness; but the wise man rests there, and reaches the land of promise. For a number of years a flour-mill was worked seven days in the week. In making a change of superintendents, it was ordered that the works should be stopped at eleven o’clock on Saturday night, and to start none of them till one o’clock on Monday morning. The same men, during the year, ground many thousands of bushels more than had ever been ground in a single year in that establishment; and the men, having time for rest and Sabbath duties, were more healthy, punctual, and diligent.

The Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary (gen. ed. Joseph S. Exell; Funk & Wagnalls, c. 1892) — public domain (pre-1929). A full-Bible homiletical/sermon-outline anthology covering 65 of 66 books (2 John is absent from the source module). Text from a community e-Sword module.

14:5 some think one day is more holy than another day, while others think every day is alike: The reference is probably to Jewish festival days and to the Sabbath; cp. Col 2:16. With Christ’s provision of salvation, observance of the Sabbath in its original form is not required of Christians.

Tyndale Open Study Notes — © Tyndale Open Resources, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Rom 14:5. Πᾶσαν ἡμέραν) πᾶσαν ἡμέραν κρίνει ἡμέραν, another judges every day a day. He judges that he should equally do good at all times.—ἰδίῳ νοΐ, in his own mind) his own, not another’s. νοῦς does not signify the opinion of the mind, but the mind itself.—πληροφορείσθαι, to be borne along with full satisfaction [lit. course]) i.e., let each one act, and let another permit him to act (this is the force of the Imperative, as at Rom 14:16) according to his own judgment, without anxious disputation, and with cheerful obedience, comp. Rom 5:6. He is not speaking positively [precisely] of the understanding; for these two things are contradictory: you may eat, you may not eat, and therefore cannot at the same time be true; and yet a man, who has determined either on the one or the other, may be fully persuaded (lit. be carried, full course) in his own mind, as a boat may hold on its course uninjured either in a narrow canal or in a spacious lake.

Bengel's Gnomon of the New Testament — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1860) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_14:5. Second point of difference, as is evident from the contents themselves, and in particular from the general laying out of the representation, which is quite similar in form to Rom_14:2. Hence we are not here to find, with Hofmann (who defends the reading ὃς μὲν γάρ), merely the first member of a chain of thought which is intended to make good the correctness of the proposition δυνατεῖ γὰρ κ.τ.λ.,so that Paul does not pass over to another controverted point. The fact that he does not thereupon enter at length on the question of days, but returns immediately in Rom_14:6 to the question of food, indicates that the latter formed in the church the controversy most prominent and threatening in an ascetic point of view. Moreover, what he had said on the point of food might so readily of itself find its application in an analogous manner to the question of days, that an entering into equal detail in regard to both points was not required.

κρίνει ἡμ. παρʼ ἡμ.] he sets his judgment on day before day, i.e. he is for preferring one day to another, so that he esteems one holier than another. This refers to the Jewish feast and fast days still observed by the weak in faith. The classical ἡμέρα παρʼ ἡμέραν, in the sense alternis diebus (Bernhardy, p. 258; Lobeck, ad Aj. 475), does not apply here (in opposition to Fritzsche, who imports into our passage the notion that the people had ascetically observed, in addition to the Sabbath, the second and fifth days of the week). Of so surprising a (pharisaical, Luk_18:12) selection of days there is no single trace in the Epistles to the Galatians (not even ἡμέρας, Rom_4:10) and Colossians, and hardly would it have met with such lenient treatment at Pauls hands. But the Jewish observance of days, continued under Christianity, so naturally agrees with the Essenic-Jewish character of the weak in faith generally, that there is no sufficient ground for thinking, with Ewald, of the observance of Sunday (at that time not yet generally established), and for seeing in Rom_14:5-6 only an example illustrating the preceding, and not a real point of difference (comp. Hofmann). On κρίνειν τι, in the sense of to declare oneself for something, i.e. aliquid probare, eligere, comp. Aesch. Agam. 471 (κρίνω δʼ ἄφθονον ὄλβον), Suppl. 393 (κρἵνε σέβας τὸ πρὸς θεῶν); Plat. Rep. p. 399 E; Xen. Hell. i. 7. 11; Isocr. Paneg. 46. On παρά, in the sense of preference, Xen. Mem. i. 4. 14, and Kühner in loc.; but in Soph. Aj. 475, παρʼ ἧμαρ ἡμέρα is (in opposition to Valckenaer, Schol. II. p. 153 ff.) to be otherwise understood; see Lobeck ad loc.

κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν] not omnem diem judicat diem (Bengel, Philippi), but corresponding to the first half of the verse: he declares himself for each day, so that he would have each esteemed equally holy, not certain days before others.

ἕκαστος κ.τ.λ.] Here too, as in the case of an adiaphoron, no more than in Rom_14:2, an objective decision, who is or is not in the right; but rather for both parties only the requisite injunction, namely, that each should have a complete assurance of faith as to the rightness of his conduct, without which persuasion the consciousness of the fulfilment of duty is lacking, and consequently the adiaphoron becomes sinful (Rom_14:20; Rom_14:23).

πληροφ.] Comp. Rom_4:21.

ἘΝ Τ. ἸΔΊῼ ΝΟΐ] i.e. in the moral consciousness of his own reason (Rom_7:23), therefore, independently of others judgment, assured in himself of the motives of action.

Meyer — Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament — English translation by Peter Christie, edited by Frederick Crombie (T&T Clark, 1880) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom 14:5 . The Apostle passes from the question of food to one of essentially the same kind the religious observance of days. This is generally regarded as quite independent of the other; but Weiss argues from Rom 14:6 , where the text which he adopts in common with most editors seems to contrast “him who observes the day ” with “him who eats ,” that what we have here is really a subdivision of the same general subject. In other words, among those who abstained from flesh and wine, some did so always, others only on certain days. “To observe the day” might in itself mean to observe it by fasting this would be the case if one’s ordinary custom were to use flesh and wine; or it might mean to observe it by feasting this would be the case if one ordinarily abstained. Practically, it makes no difference whether this reading of the passage is correct or not: Paul argues the question of the distinction of days as if it were an independent question, much as he does in Col 2 . It is not probable that there is any reference either to the Jewish Sabbath or to the Lord’s Day, though the principle on which the Apostle argues defines the Christian attitude to both. Nothing whatever in the Christian religion is legal or statutory, not even the religious observance of the first day of the week; that observance originated in faith, and is not what it should be except as it is freely maintained by faith. For ὃς μὲν see Rom 14:2 . κρίνει ἡμ . παρʼ ἡμέραν means judges one day “in comparison with,” or “to the passing by of” another: cf. Rom 1:25 , Winer, 503 f. Side by side with this, κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν can only mean, makes no distinction between days, counts all alike. In such questions the important thing is not that the decision should be this or that, but that each man should have an intelligent assurance as to his own conduct: it is, indeed, by having to take the responsibility of deciding for oneself, without the constraint of law, that an intelligent Christian conscience is developed. For πληροφορείσθω cf. Rom 4:21 , and Lightfoot’s note on Col 4:12 . νοῦς (Rom 7:23 ) is the moral intelligence, or practical reason; by means of this, enlightened by the Spirit, the Christian becomes a law to himself.

The Expositor's Greek Testament, edited by W. Robertson Nicoll (1897–1910) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Vv. 5, 6. “One man distinguisheth one day from another, the other 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 does 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.”

Paul here adduces an example taken from the same domain of external practices, and in which the two opposite lines of conduct may be also followed with equal fidelity. The days are those of the Jewish feasts, which Judeo-Christians continued for the most part to observe: Sabbaths, new moons, etc. (Col 2:15). Did this example really exist at Rome, or did the apostle choose it from the life of the church in general, to have the opportunity of better explaining his thought? The first is the more natural supposition. For there must have been in the church of Rome a certain number of Judeo-Christians, though they did not form the majority.

The for, which is read in some MSS., is probably owing to a copyist’s habit. The word κρίνειν, to judge, frequently takes the sense of distinguishing. To judge one day among others, may therefore signify: to distinguish it favorably from the others; to set it apart as more worthy to be sanctified. There is a little irony in the second alternative: to discern every day. For it is evident that there is no longer any distinction when all are distinguished. To set apart every day as holy, is no longer to sanctify any one specially. Between the two modes of acting thus expressed, the apostle does not decide. All he asks of any one is, that his practice should obey a personal and deliberate conviction. The expression ἐν τῷ νοί, in his mind, contains the idea of a serious examination; and the term πληροφορεῖσθαι, strictly: to be filled to the brim, denotes a state of conviction which leaves no more room for the least hesitation.

Vv. 6. The apostle states the reason why the two lines of conduct are equally admissible. It is because, opposed as they are, they are inspired by one and the same desire, that of serving the Lord. The second proposition: “He that regardeth not the day”..., is omitted in the Alex. and Greco-Lat. texts. Notwithstanding all the efforts of commentators, and of Hofmann in particular, to justify the absence of this parallel proposition, this reading appears to me untenable. It is necessary strangely to force the meaning of the first alternative: “He that regardeth...regardeth unto the Lord,” to bring it into logical relation to the two ways of acting explained in Rom 14:5. And it is impossible to refer it only to one of them. The confounding of the two φρονεῖ by a careless copyist must have caused the omission, as in so many other similar cases.

The apostle means that the man who, in his religious practice, keeps the Jewish feast-days, does so for the purpose of doing homage to the Lord by resting in Him, as the man who does not observe them does so for the purpose of laboring actively for Him.

It has been concluded from these sayings of Paul, that the obligation to observe Sunday as a day divinely instituted, was not compatible with Christian spirituality, as this was understood by St. Paul. The context does not allow us to draw such a conclusion. The believer who observes Sunday does not in the least do so under the thought of ascribing to this day a superior holiness to that of other days. To him all days are, as the apostle thinks, equal in holy consecration. As rest is not holier than work, no more is Sunday holier than other days. It is another form of consecration, the periodical return of which, like the alternations of sleep and waking, arises from the conditions of our physico-psychical existence. The Christian does not cease to be a man by becoming a spiritual man. And as one day of rest in seven was divinely instituted at the creation in behalf of natural humanity, one does not see why the believer should not require this periodical rest as well as the unregenerate man. “The Sabbath was made for man;” so long as the Christian preserves his earthly nature, this saying applies to him, and should turn not to the detriment, but to the profit of his spiritual life. The keeping of Sunday thus understood has nothing in common with the Sabbatical observance which divides life into two parts, the one holy, the other profane. It is this legal distinction which Paul excludes in our Rom 14:5 and Colossians 2.

In the second part of Rom 14:6, Paul returns to the principal case. He does so simply by the copula καί, and, and not by a ὡσαύτως, likewise; which seems to prove that the example taken from the keeping of days was not a simple comparison chosen at pleasure from the general life of the church, but a case which was really found at Rome itself. As a proof that he who eats (of everything), eats to the Lord, the apostle adduces (for) the fact that he gives thanks for those meats. The object of this giving of thanks is God, as the author of nature.

In speaking of him who does not eat (of everything), Paul does not say, as in the previous case: “for he giveth thanks,” but: “and he giveth thanks.” It was unnecessary, indeed, to prove that by abstaining he did so for the Lord; that was understood of itself. The real meaning of this proposition is therefore: “And he does not the less give thanks, he too, for this frugal repast.”

As to these two thanksgivings, which mark the two different ways of acting with a seal of equal holiness, how much more of a dramatic character do they take when we imagine them as offered by these two classes of believers at the same moment and at the same table!

This so remarkable saying of the apostle furnishes us with the true means of deciding all those questions of casuistry which so often arise in Christian life, and cause the believer so much embarrassment: May I allow myself this or that pleasure? Yes, if I can enjoy it to the Lord, and while giving Him thanks for it; no, if I cannot receive it as a gift from His hand, and bless Him for it. This mode of solution respects at once the rights of the Lord and those of individual liberty.

The contrast between these two ways of acting, partaking and abstaining, which we must beware of converting into a contrast of faithfulness and unfaithfulness, was only the special application of a more general contrast which pervades the whole of human life: that between living and dying. Paul, always under the necessity of embracing questions in all their width, extends in the following verses that which he has just been treating to the entire domain of life and death.

Frédéric Louis Godet — Commentaries on Luke, John, Romans, and 1 Corinthians — English translation (T&T Clark, Edinburgh, 1870s–1890s) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Rom_14:5

One man esteemeth one day above another; another esteemeth every day alike. Κρίνει ἡμέραν παρ ̓ ἡμέραν (εἶναι), judges one day (to be) before another, (i.e., better,) κρίνει πᾶσαν ἡμέραν (εἶναι ἡμέραν), to be a day, and nothing more. He has the same judgment (or estimation) of every day. As the law of Moses not only made a distinction between meats as clean and unclean, but also prescribed the observance of certain days as religious festivals, the Jewish converts were as scrupulous with regard to this latter point as the former. Some Christians, therefore, thought it incumbent on them to observe these days; others were of a contrary opinion. Both were to be tolerated. The veneration of these days was a weakness; but still it was not a vital matter, and therefore should not be allowed to disturb the harmony of Christian intercourse, or the peace of the church. It is obvious from the context, and from such parallel passages as Gal_4:10, Ye observe days, and months, and times, and years, and Col_2:16, Let no man judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of Sabbath days, that Paul has reference to the Jewish festivals, and therefore his language cannot properly be applied to the Christian Sabbath. The sentiment of the passage is this, One man observes the Jewish festivals, another man does not. Such we know was the fact in the apostolic church, even among those who agreed in the observance of the first day of the week.

Let every man he fully persuaded in his own mind. The principle which the apostle enforces in reference to this case, is the same as that which he enjoined in relation to the other, viz., that one man should not be forced to act according to another mans conscience, but every one should be satisfied in his own mind, and be careful not to do what he thought wrong.

Charles Hodge — Commentary on Romans (1835), First Corinthians (1857), and Ephesians (1856) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Another example of the difference of days according to the law.

That he may say in his conscience, that he knoweth and is persuaded by Jesus Christ, that nothing is unclean of itself, and this persuasion must be grounded upon the word of God.

He setteth against this contempt, and hasty or rash judgments, a continual desire to profit, that the strong may be certainly persuaded of their liberty, of what manner and sort it is, and how they ought to use it: and again the weak may daily profit, lest either they abuse the gift of God, or these please themselves in their infirmity.

Geneva Bible (1599) marginal notes — public domain. Text via Bolls.life.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day--The supplement "alike" should be omitted, as injuring the sense.

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind--be guided in such matters by conscientious conviction.

Jamieson, Fausset & Brown — Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible (1871) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

Verse 5. One man esteemeth one day above another] Perhaps the word ημεραν, day, is here taken for time, festival, and such like, in which sense it is frequently used. Reference is made here to the Jewish institutions, and especially their festivals; such as the passover, pentecost, feast of tabernacles, new moons, jubilee, c. The converted Jew still thought these of moral obligation the Gentile Christian not having been bred up in this way had no such prejudices. And as those who were the instruments of bringing him to the knowledge of God gave him no such injunctions, consequently he paid to these no religious regard.

Another] The converted Gentile esteemeth every day-considers that all time is the Lord's, and that each day should be devoted to the glory of God; and that those festivals are not binding on him.

We add here alike, and make the text say what I am sure was never intended, viz. that there is no distinction of days, not even of the Sabbath: and that every Christian is at liberty to consider even this day to be holy or not holy, as he happens to be persuaded in his own mind.

That the Sabbath is of lasting obligation may be reasonably concluded from its institution (See Clarke on Ge 2:3) and from its typical reference. All allow that the Sabbath is a type of that rest in glory which remains for the people of God. Now, all types are intended to continue in full force till the antitype, or thing signified, take place; consequently, the Sabbath will continue in force till the consummation of all things. The word alike should not be added; nor is it acknowledged by any MS. or ancient version.

Let every man be fully persuaded] With respect to the propriety or non-propriety of keeping the above festivals, let every man act from the plenary conviction of his own mind; there is a sufficient latitude allowed: all may be fully satisfied.

Adam Clarke's Commentary on the Bible (1810–1826) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. One indeed, etc. He had spoken before of scruples in the choice of meats; he now adds another example of difference, that is, as to days; and both these arose from Judaism. For as the Lord in his law made a difference between meats and pronounced some to be unclean, the use of which he prohibited, and as he had also appointed festal and solemn days and commanded them to be observed, the Jews, who had been brought up from their childhood in the doctrine of the law, would not lay aside that reverence for days which they had entertained from the beginning, and to which through life they had been accustomed; nor could they have dared to touch these meats from which they had so long abstained. That they were imbued with these notions, was an evidence of their weakness; they would have thought otherwise, had they possessed a certain and a clear knowledge of Christian liberty. But in abstaining from what they thought to be unlawful, they evidenced piety, as it would have been a proof of presumption and contempt, had they done anything contrary to the dictates of conscience.

Here then the Apostle applies the best rule, when he bids every one to be fully assured as to his own mind; by which he intimates that there ought to be in Christians such a care for obedience, that they do nothing, except what they think, or rather feel assured, is pleasing to God. And this ought to be thoroughly borne in mind, that it is the first principle of a right conduct, that men should be dependent on the will of God, and never allow themselves to move even a finger, while the mind is doubtful and vacillating; for it cannot be otherwise, but that rashness will soon pass over into obstinacy when we dare to proceed further than what we are persuaded is lawful for us. If any object and say, that infirmity is ever perplexing, and that hence such certainty as Paul requires cannot exist in the weak: to this the plain answer is, — That such are to be pardoned, if they keep themselves within their own limits. For Paul’s purpose was none other than to restrain undue liberty, by which it happens, that many thrust themselves, as it were, at random, into matters which are doubtful and undetermined. Hence Paul requires this to be adopted, — that the will of God is to preside over all our actions.

John Calvin's Commentaries (1540-1563) — public domain. Text from the Calvin Translation Society English edition (1840s-50s) via the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (ccel.org). Calvin's coverage is partial (roughly two-thirds of the Bible); uncommented books and verses are honest gaps, never fabricated. The 19th-century editor's footnotes and remarks are omitted so the notes are faithfully Calvin's own voice.

(5) One man esteemeth.—For the observance of days and seasons, compare Gal_4:10; Col_2:16. From these passages, taken together, it is clear that the observance of special days has no absolute 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.

A Bible Commentary for English Readers, edited by Charles John Ellicott (1878–1897) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. One man esteemeth, &c.] Lit. One man judgeth day abeve day, but another Judgeth every day. The “judgeth” in the second clause is an echo from the first, without which it would be obscure. As it stands, it means not only, as E. V., “esteemeth every day alike,” but “every day good alike;” with a suggestion that the “strong” believer will be careful to assert his freedom in the spirit of one who wishes not to secularize but to consecrate his whole time.

On the question of the Sabbath, see last note on Rom_14:1.

fully persuaded] “Quite sure.” Cp. Rom_4:21. This word directs individual Christians not to stubborn fixity in their own opinion as such, but to earnest pains, as in the Lord’s presence and by His revealed will, to form that opinion clearly. Each man not only has a right to “his own” opinion, but (a very different matter) is responsible for it to the Lord.

The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges (gen. ed. J. J. S. Perowne; Cambridge University Press, 1878–1918) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One man esteemeth one day above another,.... This is another instance of the difference of sentiments in this church, about the observation of rituals; and is not to be understood of days appointed by the Christian churches for fasting, or abstinence from certain meats, either once a year, as the "Quadragesima", or Lent; or twice a week, as Wednesdays and Fridays; for these are things of much later observation, and which had never been introduced into the church of Rome in the apostle's time; nor were there any disputes about them: much less of days of Heathenish observation, as lucky or unlucky, or festivals in honour of their gods; for the apostle would never say, that a man who regarded such a day, regarded it to the Lord; nor would have advised to a coalition and Christian conversation with such a man, but rather to exclude him from all society and communion: it remains, therefore, that it must be understood of Jewish days, or of such as were appointed to be observed by the Jews under the former dispensation, and which some thought were still to be regarded; wherefore they esteemed some days in the year above others, as the days of unleavened bread, or the passover; particularly the first night, which was a night to be observed throughout their generations; and in their service for it to this day, use these words, , "how different is this night from every other night" (n)? and the feast of tabernacles, especially the last and great day of the feast, and the day of Pentecost; also one day in a month above others, the first day of the month, or new moon; and one day in a week, the seventh day sabbath: now there were some, who thought that the laws respecting these days were still in force, particularly the latter, and therefore esteemed it above another: but let it be observed, that the man that did so was one that was weak in faith; the same man that ate herbs, because he would not be guilty of violating those laws, which ordered a distinction of meats to be observed, the same weak man esteemed one day above another, imagining the laws concerning the distinction of days were still obligatory, not rightly understanding the doctrine of Christian liberty, or freedom from the yoke of the ceremonial law:

another esteemeth every day alike; that is, one that is strong in faith, and has a greater degree of the knowledge of the Gospel, and of evangelical liberty, knows that the distinction of days, as well as of meats, is taken away, since the word was made flesh, and tabernacled among us, Christ the passover is sacrificed for us, the firstfruits of the Spirit have been received, and light by the church from the sun of righteousness, and Christ the true sabbath and rest is come; and therefore, being firmly persuaded there is no more holiness in days than there is in places, has the same regard for one day as another. The difference between these two lay here, the weak brother regarded a day for the sake of a day, as having by a positive law, he supposed to be in force, a superiority to another, and he regarded worship for the sake of this day; the stronger brother, though he also observed a day for divine worship, which is the Lord's day, since there must be some time for it as well as place, yet he observed the day for the sake of worship, and not worship for the sake of the day:

let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; this is the advice the apostle gives to both parties; his sense is, that he would have each of them fully enjoy their own principle and practice undisturbed; he would have the weak brother, that esteemed one day above another, indulged in his way, since it arose from weakness, until he had better light, nor should he be despised for his weakness; he would have the stronger Christian also peaceably enjoy his sentiment, and pursue what he believed to be right; nor should he be judged, censured, and condemned, as a profane person, and a transgressor of the law: his counsel is, that they would sit down and carefully examine the word of God, and act according to the best light they should receive from thence; and take care especially, that they did not act contrary to their own consciences, with doubt and hesitation; they ought to be thoroughly satisfied in their own minds, and being so, should content themselves with their different sentiments and practices, without despising or censuring one another.

(n) Haggada Shel Pesach, p. 5.

John Gill's Exposition of the Whole Bible (1746–1763) — public domain (CC PDM 1.0). Text via the HelloAO Bible API.

5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.

Ver. 5. Let every man be fully persuaded] It is a safe rule, Quod dubites ne feceris, In doubtful cases be sure to take the surer side. (Plin. Epist.)

John Trapp, A Commentary or Exposition upon All the Books of the Old and New Testament (1647–1656) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One man esteemeth - Greek “judgeth” κρίνει krinei. The word is here properly translated “esteemeth;” compare Act 13:46; Act 16:15. The word originally has the idea of “separating,” and then “discerning,” in the act of judging. The expression means that one would set a higher value on one day than on another, or would regard it as more sacred than others. This was the case with the “Jews” uniformly, who regarded the days of their festivals, and fasts, and Sabbaths as especially sacred, and who would retain, to no inconsiderable degree, their former views, even after they became converted to Christianity.

Another “esteemeth - That is, the “Gentile” Christian. Not having been brought up amidst the Jewish customs, and not having imbibed their opinions and prejudices, they would not regard these days as having any special sacredness. The appointment of those days had a special reference “to the Jews.” They were designed to keep them as a separate people, and to prepare the nation for the “reality,” of which their rites were but the shadow. When the Messiah came, the passover, the feast of tabernacles, and the other special festivals of the Jews, of course vanished, and it is perfectly clear that the apostles never intended to inculcate their observance on the Gentile converts. See this subject discussed in the second chapter of the Epistle to the Galatians.

Every day alike - The word “alike” is not in the original, and it may convey an idea which the apostle did not design. The passage means that he regards “every day” as consecrated to the Lord; Rom 14:6. The question has been agitated whether the apostle intends in this to include the Christian Sabbath. Does he mean to say that it is a matter of “indifference” whether this day be observed, or whether it be devoted to ordinary business or amusements? This is a very important question in regard to the Lord’s day. That the apostle did not mean to say that it was a matter of indifference whether it should be kept as holy, or devoted to business or amusement, is plain from the following considerations.

(1) The discussion had reference only to the special customs of the “Jews,” to the rites and practices which “they” would attempt to impose on the Gentiles, and not to any questions which might arise among Christians as “Christians.” The inquiry pertained to “meats,” and festival observances among the Jews, and to their scruples about partaking of the food offered to idols, etc.; and there is no more propriety in supposing that the subject of the Lord’s day is introduced here than that he advances principles respecting “baptism” and “the Lord’s supper.”

(2) The “Lord’s day” was doubtless observed by “all” Christians, whether converted from Jews or Gentiles; see 1Co 16:2; Act 20:7; Rev 1:10; compare the notes at Joh 20:26. The propriety of observing “that day” does not appear to have been a matter of controversy. The only inquiry was, whether it was proper to add to that the observance of the Jewish Sabbaths, and days of festivals and fasts.

(3) It is expressly said that those who did not regard the day regarded it as not to God, or to honor God; Rom 14:6. They did it as a matter of respect to him and his institutions, to promote his glory, and to advance his kingdom. Was this ever done by those who disregard the Christian Sabbath? Is their design ever to promote his honor, and to advance in the knowledge of him, by “neglecting” his holy day? Who knows not that the Christian Sabbath has never been neglected or profaned by any design to glorify the Lord Jesus, or to promote his kingdom? It is for purposes of business, gain, war, amusement, dissipation, visiting, crime. Let the heart be filled with a sincere desire to “honor the Lord Jesus,” and the Christian Sabbath will be reverenced, and devoted to the purposes of piety. And if any man is disposed to plead “this passage” as an excuse for violating the Sabbath, and devoting it to pleasure or gain, let him quote it “just as it is,” that is, let “him neglect the Sabbath from a conscientious desire to honor Jesus Christ.” Unless this is his motive, the passage cannot avail him. But this motive never yet influenced a Sabbath-breaker.

Let every man ... - That is, subjects of this kind are not to be pressed as matters of conscience. Every man is to examine them for himself, and act accordingly. This direction pertains to the subject under discussion, and not to any other. It does not refer to subjects that were “morally” wrong, but to ceremonial observances. If the “Jew” esteemed it wrong to eat meat, he was to abstain from it; if the Gentile esteemed it right, he was to act accordingly. The word “be fully persuaded” denotes the highest conviction, not a matter of opinion or prejudice, but a matter on which the mind is made up by examination; see Rom 4:21; 2Ti 4:5. This is the general principle on which Christians are called to act in relation to festival days and fasts in the church. If some Christians deem them to be for edification, and suppose that their piety will be promoted by observing the days which commemorate the birth, and death, and temptations of the Lord Jesus, they are not to be reproached or opposed in their celebration. Nor are they to attempt to impose them on others as a matter of conscience, or to reproach others because they do not observe them.

Albert Barnes' Notes on the Bible (1834–1885) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

Between day, &c. Still observing the sabbaths and festivals of the law. (Challoner.) --- And another judgeth every day. That is, thinks every day to be taken away, that was to be kept, merely because ordered under the Jewish law. And now since both they who keep days, or do not keep them; and they who eat, or who abstain, do these things which a regard to God, and according to their conscience, let no one judge, or condemn the one party, nor the other; in these things, let every man abound in his own sense. It is without grounds that some would pretend from hence, that Christians cannot be bound to fast, or abstain from flesh on certain days. The apostle speaks only of the distinction of meats, called clean and unclean, and of fasts or feasts peculiar to the law of Moses. It does not follow from hence, that the Catholic Church hath not power to command days of fasting, and abstaining, for self-denial or humiliation. (Witham) --- The apostle here treats only of the subject in hand, viz. the Mosaic distinctions of clean and unclean meats: and in this he allows, for that present time, each one to follow his own private judgment. St. John Chrysostom observes that St. Paul did not wish the weak to be left to their own judgment in this, as in a point of no consequence; but that they should wait for a time. The converts were not immediately prohibited their accustomed practices, but they were tolerated in them for a while, till fully instructed. This we see in many of the converts at Jerusalem, who were still observers of the Mosaic ordinances; this was tolerated, that the synagogue might be buried with honour. (Estius)

George Leo Haydock (1774–1849), Haydock's Catholic Family Bible and Commentary, 1859 edition — public domain. Excludes Psalms (Douay-Rheims chapter numbering differs from Protestant) and Deuterocanonical books (Catholic canon only).

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike: there were differences in the church of Rome about the observation of days, as well as the choice of meats; and in this he endeavours an accommodation as well as in the other. The converted Jew was of opinion, that the festival days appointed in Moses’s law, were holier than other days, and that they should still be observed: see Gal 4:10; Col 2:16. On the other side, the believing Gentile was of opinion, that the difference in days under the Old Testament was now ceased, and he (the text says) esteemed or approved of all days. The word alike is not in the original, but it is aptly supplied by our translators.

Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind; i.e. Let every man be satisfied as to the grounds of his practice; let him act by his own and not another man’s, judgment and conscience; let him be so fully assured in his own mind of the lawfulness of what he doth, as to find no doubting or scrupulous hesitations in the doing of it; let him be able to say as the apostle himself doth, Rom 14:14. The reason of this counsel you have, Rom 14:23. He that doth what he thinks is a sin, is an offender against God, whether it be a sin or no. And yet a man may sin in that wherein he is fully persuaded he sinneth not. A full persuasion must be had, but it is not sufficient to make an action good or lawful.

Matthew Poole's English Annotations on the Holy Bible (1683–1685) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5. Day above another—Literally, day over day. Inasmuch as the apostle in the former instance mentions the strong opinion first, namely, that which favoured eating all things, and which the apostle himself held; so by parallelism this must be the stronger opinion, and held by the apostle himself, as being the first. And there is proof from the apostle’s conduct that he did esteem one day above another.

Every day alike—The word alike being in italics is of course not in the Greek, and, as supplied by the translators, perverts perhaps the meaning. Let it be noted that the Greek word accurately twice rendered esteemeth expresses in both cases precisely the same state of mind. And then we have the result that, whereas one’s esteem raises a particular day to a certain holy elevation over another, so the other’s esteem assumes to raise all to the same holy elevation. That is, Paul elevates the seventh day above the others to a sabbath, and the other equalizes all days, not by sinking the sabbath to a secular day, but by raising all days to a sabbatical rank. So that as all his eating of vegetable food is a holy fast, (Mat_3:4,) so all his days are, in his mysticism, holy sabbaths. Paul will not now condemn this high strain of conscience; but he will defend the esteemer of one day above another against the censoriousness of this ultra pietist.

Daniel D. Whedon (gen. ed.), Commentary on the Old and New Testaments (1874–1909) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike (literally, one judgeth day beyond or, in comparison with day: another judgeth every day. For krinein in the sense of "estimate," cf. Act_13:46 Act_16:15 Act_26:8. For sense of para with accusative, cf. Act_1:25 Luk_13:2. Days being here only briefly referred to in a chapter the main subject of which is meats, some have supposed fast-days only to be meant; in which case the sense might be that some make it a necessary point of conscience to abstain from food, or from certain kinds of food, on particular days, while others make no such distinction between days as a matter of essential import. But a comparison Gal_4:10 and with Col_2:16 suggests rather a general reference to days of observance under the Jewish Law. The same class of weak brethren with Jewish prejudices that was scrupulous about meats would be likely to be also scrupulous about days and seasons and if scruples on the latter head seem to be mentioned only incidentally in this chapter, it may be because the others were at that time mainly conspicuous, and threatening to disturb the peace of the Church. One view that has been taken is that this short allusion to observance of days is introduced only in the way of illustration and argument; it being supposed that difference of practice with regard to days was allowed without dispute, and that what St. Paul means to say is, "You do exercise mutual tolerance in this matter extend the same principle to the matter of meats, to which it is equally applicable. This view of the meaning of the passage would derive support from the reading of gar at the beginning of ver. 5, which rests on fair authority. The supposed reference to Jewish days of obligation in general is.. not inconsistent with the apparent condemnation of the observance of such days by Christians in Ga 4 and Col 4. For see what has been said above about the drift of Col_2:16 and of 1Ti_4:3, etc. When the observances came to be insisted on as obligatory on principle, it was a different thing from mere conscientious scrupulosity. Let every man be fully persuaded (for the verb in this sense, cf. Rom_4:21) in his own mind. To St. Paul himself the observance or nonobservance of the days referred to was a matter in itself of no importance. He was content that each person should act up to his own conscientious convictions on the subject.

HOMILIES BY S.R. ALDRIDGE Ver. 5. Individual decision.

Questions concerning conduct greatly interest and occupy the minds of the majority. They involve the translation of abstract principle into concrete rules, and the visible concrete stirs us more deeply than abstractions. Yet it is these matters of application and detail which have often rent and grievously damaged the fellowship of the saints. The wise, magnanimous prudence of the apostle lays down one duty in relation to these vexed questions, which crop up today in modem forms. For instance, many are perplexed as to the rigid obligatoriness of sabbath observance, as to what is implied in keeping a day of rest as "the Lord"s day." Others moot the topic of contributions for religious purposes, whether a tithe is the scriptural proportion, and how far this is compulsory. Other subjects coming under the same category are amusements, abstinence from spirituous liquors, business policy, and politics.

I EACH HAS TO SETTLE SUCH QUESTIONS FOR HIMSELF. "Let each be assured in his own mind." Others cannot do our part in investigation and decision. No one is authorized to come between us and God in such matters; even the apostle does not intrude on the province of several judgment. We must decide what our conscience prescribes, and where our conception of Christian service requires us to draw the line.

Only let each see to it that he be not satisfied with giving the least amount or rendering the slightest obedience possible. He is wrong and condemns himself who asks, "How near the dangerous cliff can I walk without peril?" or, "What is the minimum religious work I can undertake as a servant of Christ?" We need to study Scripture, to prayerfully ponder on its law of life, its principles, and the illustrations afforded by the lives and acts of the noblest heroes. Nor are we precluded from seeking the help and enlightenment which other books and companions may furnish. Yet the conclusion come to must be felt to be our own, in harmony with the dictates of our conscience, and ratified by our independent judgment. Then we may go fearlessly forward. Men differ in the conclusions they reach honestly enough, according to their breadth of intellect, their natural temperament, their surroundings, and their education, mental and experimental.

II WE CANNOT BE ENDLESSLY ARGUING THESE QUESTIONS. He who is ever debating with himself settles nothing. He wastes his brief moments in deciding what to think and do, instead of beginning at once the discharge of his duties and the exercise of his gifts. Much in Christian doctrine and practice is unambiguous. To cultivate love, peace, godliness, to bring forth the fruits of the Spirit in activity, benevolence, holiness, the rightness of this needs no process of reasoning. The man possessed by an idea is the man who influences his fellows; not he who is sure of nothing, who has only conundrums to propound instead of a way of salvation to proclaim and suggestions for usefulness to enforce. The ring of conviction in the voice begets assent and confidence in the hearers. "We believe, and therefore we speak," this is the preaching which is mighty unto conversion. A dainty scepticism has but negative chilling power. Doubters can hardly be fruit-bearers. Once a decision has been arrived at, the reasons on which it was founded may not be always present to the mind, but the impression remains. This does not forbid a growth of opinion, the gaining of a wider outlook and clearer penetration modifying previous conclusions. Time and experience confirm or alter views by imperceptible degrees, without the ferment that attends constant restlessness of debate.

III WE HAVE NO RIGHT TO IMPOSE OUR PARTICULAR JUDGMENT AND EXAMPLE AS ARTICLES OF FAITH ON OUR FELLOW-MEMBERS. There must be mutual concessions. Let not the strong contemn the weak as narrow-minded, nor the scrupulous censure the liberty of others as an infraction of Christian morals. Tee-totallers err when they pass strictures on non-abstainers, and the latter are equally guilty when they ridicule the former"s self-denial. The good of the society, though best secured by the welfare of each unit composing the alliance, is yet of greater worth than the satisfaction and triumph of any separate section. "Follow after the things which make for peace." Divine charity, which bears long with all sorts and conditions of men, is reflected in the membership which knows how to be tolerant without laxity, and comprehensive without indefiniteness. The building up of the temple of God will take long if we are always deliberating on the right of individual stones to a place in the structure. Is the mark of the Master-mason on the stone? Has God received such? Then it is not for us to question or exclude. S.R.A.

The Pulpit Commentary (1880–1919), ed. H.D.M. Spence-Jones & Joseph S. Exell — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One day above another - As new moons, and other Jewish festivals. Let every man be fully persuaded - That a thing is lawful, before he does it.

John Wesley, Explanatory Notes Upon the Whole Bible (1754–1765) — public domain. Text via the GEBible commentary corpus.

The second case, as to indifferent things, is about the observation of days. Many of the believing Jews could not be taken off from solemnizing those feasts which were of God’s own founding and instituting among the Jews. Another looked upon them truly as abrogated by Christ. Now the apostle advises, that neither the one nor the other, neither he that regardeth, nor he that regardeth not those days, should be judged, or hardly censured for so doing, because he acts therein according to the direction of his conscience. He that according to his light doth either eat or not eat such meats, keep or not keep such days, intends or designs it as an act of obedience to God; praying for, and giving thanks unto Almighty God for his acceptance. So then, if they both aim at the same end, they ought not to condemn one another for each other’s act.

Learn hence, That persons disagreeing with us, and differing from us in lesser things, from a real principle of conscience, firmly persuaded that what they do, or refuse to do, is for the glory of God, and out of a sincere desire to please him, ought not to be judged by us, but left to the righteous judgment of the heart-searching God.

William Burkitt's Expository Notes on the New Testament (1700–1703) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

EVERY DAY HOLY

5. “For indeed one judgeth a day above a day and another judgeth every day alike; let each one be fully persuaded in his own mind for

William B. Godbey, Commentary on the New Testament (1896–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike . [Jewish Christians generally continued to reverence and observe the sabbath, new moons and festival days commanded by the law of Moses, but which are no part of the Christian system ( Gal_4:10 ; Col_2:15-16 ); while the Gentile Christian regarded all days as equally holy, and to be spent in the fear and service of God.] Let each man be fully assured in his own mind . [About indifferent matters God has given no command, hence each must follow his own judgment and conscience, and none is required to adjust his conduct to satisfy the conscience, much less the scruples of another, though he must show charity and forbearance toward his brother's conscience.]

J. W. McGarvey (with Philip Y. Pendleton), Commentaries on the New Testament (The Fourfold Gospel, 1914; Acts; and the epistles) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.

5–9. One man esteemeth one day above another. A second difference of opinion is now cited. Some, Jewish converts or Gentiles who did not understand that the old covenant was ended, believed that the Jewish Sabbaths and new moons should be kept sacred. Compare Col. 2:16, and Gal. 4:10. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. Let each act as he thinks right. If he thinks he ought to observe the days, let him do as his conscience demands. If he thinks otherwise, let him not observe them.

B. W. Johnson's The People's New Testament with Notes (1889–1891) — public domain. Electronic text from the Christian Classics Ethereal Library (CCEL) ThML edition.

One person values one day above another. Another values every day equally

"One person thinks one day is more important than all the others, but another person thinks that all days are the same"

Let each person be convinced in his own mind

You can make the full meaning explicit. You can also translate this in an active form. AT: "Let each person be sure what he is doing is to honor the Lord" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord

Here "observes" refers to worshiping. AT: "The person who worships on a certain day does it to honor the Lord" (See: Assumed Knowledge and Implicit Information)

he who eats

The word "everything" is understood from Romans 14:03. It can be repeatd here. AT: "the person who eats every kind of food" (See: Ellipsis)

eats for the Lord

"eats to honor the Lord" or "eats that way in order to honor the Lord"

He who does not eat

The word "everything" is understood from Romans 14:03. It can be repeatd here. AT: "He who does not eat everything" or "The person who does not eat certain kinds of food" (See: Ellipsis)

refrains from eating for the Lord

"refrains from eating those foods in order to honor the Lord" or "eats that way in order to honor the Lord"

translationWords

lord

God

unfoldingWord translationNotes — © Distant Shores Media and the Door43 World Missions Community, licensed CC BY-SA 4.0. Source: git.door43.org/Door43/en_tn.

5. ὃς μὲν γὰρ κ.τ.λ. A second instance is given—scruples as to the observance of days. Here it is almost inevitable to think of Jewish influence (cf. Col 2:16): and all the more remarkable is the detached way in which the case is treated: as long as such observance is not made occasion for judging others, it is open to individual choice.

κρίνει—παρ’. No exact parallel: = judges or esteems one day as superior to another for certain purposes: and perh. distinguishes one day from another. Cf. on Rom 12:3.

πληροφορείσθω, be assured. Cf. Rom 4:21; Col 4:12: alibi 2Ti 4:7; Luk 1:1.

Cambridge Greek Testament for Schools and Colleges (Cambridge University Press, 1896; 21 vols, various authors incl. Carr, Maclear, Plummer, Farrar, Lumby, Moule, M. R. James, Simcox) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5.] One man (the weak) esteems (selects for honour,—κρίνει ἀξίαν τιμῆς) (one) day above (reff.) (another) day; another (the strong) esteems (ἀξίαν τιμῆς) every day. Let each be fully satisfied in his own mind. It is an interesting question, what indication is here found of the observance or non-observance of a day of obligation in the apostolic times. The Apostle decides nothing; leaving every man’s own mind to guide him in the point. He classes the observance or non-observance of particular days, with the eating or abstaining from particular meats. In both cases, he is concerned with things which he evidently treats as of absolute indifference in themselves. Now the question is, supposing the divine obligation of one day in seven to have been recognized by him in any form, could he have thus spoken? The obvious inference from his strain of arguing is, that he knew of no such obligation, but believed all times and days to be, to the Christian strong in faith, alike. I do not see how the passage can be otherwise understood. If any one day in the week were invested with the sacred character of the Sabbath, it would have been wholly impossible for the Apostle to commend or uphold the man who judged all days worthy of equal honour,—who as in ver. 6 paid no regard to the (any) day. He must have visited him with his strongest disapprobation, as violating a command of God. I therefore infer, that sabbatical obligation to keep any day, whether seventh or first, was not recognized in apostolic times. It must be carefully remembered, that this inference does not concern the question of the observance of the Lord’s Day as an institution of the Christian Church, analogous to the ancient Sabbath, binding on us from considerations of humanity and religious expediency, and by the rules of that branch of the Church in which Providence has placed us, but not in any way inheriting the divinely-appointed obligation of the other, or the strict prohibitions by which its sanctity was defended. The reply commonly furnished to these considerations, viz. that the Apostle was speaking here only of Jewish festivals, and therefore cannot refer to Christian ones, is a quibble of the poorest kind: its assertors themselves distinctly maintaining the obligation of one such Jewish festival on Christians. What I maintain is, that had the Apostle believed as they do, he could not by any possibility have written thus. Besides, in the face of πᾶσαν ἡμέραν, the assertion is altogether unfounded.

Henry Alford, The Greek Testament (1849–1861) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

5. The Apostle turns to another instance of similar scrupulousness, —the superstitious observance of days. In Galatia he has already had to rebuke this strongly; later he condemns the Colossians for the same reason. Gal 4:10, Gal 4:11 ‘Ye observe days, and months, and seasons, and years. I am afraid of you, lest by any means I have bestowed labour upon you in vain.’ Col 2:16, Col 2:17 ‘Let no man therefore judge you in meat, or in drink, or in respect of a feast day or a new moon or a sabbath day: which are a shadow of the things to come; but the body is Christ’s.’ St. Paul does not in the Romans condemn any one for adherence to this practice, but simply considers the principles which underlie the question, as illustrating (hence γάρ) the general discussion of the chapter. The fundamental principle is that such things are in themselves indifferent, but that each person must be fully assured in his own conscience that he is doing right.

Various commentators have discussed the relation of these directions to Ecclesiastical ordinances, and have attempted to make a distinction between the Jewish rites which are condemned and Christian rites which are enjoined. (So Jerome, Contra Iovinian. ii. 16, quoted by Liddon ad loc.: non inter ieiunia et saturitatem aequalia mente dispensat; sed contra eos loquitur, qui in Christum credentes, adhuc iudaizabant.) No such distinction is possible. The Apostle is dealing with principles, not with special rites, and he lays down the principle that these things in themselves are indifferent; while the whole tenor of his argument is against scrupulousness in any form. So these same principles would apply equally to the scrupulous observance of Ecclesiastical rules, whether as in some places of Sunday, or as in others of Saints’ days or Fast days. Such observances if undertaken in a scrupulous spirit are opposed to the very essence of Christian freedom. When once this principle has been grasped a loyal free adhesion to the rules of the Church becomes possible. The Jew and the scrupulous Christian kept their rules of days and seasons, because they believed that their salvation depended on an exact adherence to formal ordinances. The Christian who has grasped the freedom of the Gospel recognizes the indifference in themselves of all such ordinances; but he voluntarily submits to the rules of his Church out of respect for its authority, and he recognizes the value of an external discipline. The Apostolical Constitutions, which representing an early system of Christian discipline, seem to recognize these principles, for they strongly condemn abstinence from food if influenced by any feeling of abhorrence from it, although not if undertaken for the purpose of discipline.

Tisch. (Exo_8) reads here ὃς μὲν γάρ with א A C P, Vulg. Boh. (which he quotes incorrectly on the other side), Bas. Ambrstr. Jo.-Damasc. The γάρ is omitted by אc B D E F G, Syrr., Orig.-lat. Chrys. Thdrt. T. R. RV. and inserted between brackets by WH. Lachmann. The insertion is probably right; the balance of external evidence being in its favour, for B here is clearly Western in character.

κρίνει, ‘estimates,’ ‘approves of’: Plat. Phil. p. 57 E is quoted. παρά, ‘passing by’ and so ‘in preference to.’

πληροφορείσθω. The difference between the Christian and the Jew or the heathen, between the man whose rule is one of faith and the man subject to law, is, that while for the latter there are definite and often minute regulations he must follow, for the former the only laws are great and broad principles. He has the guidance of the Spirit; he must do what his νοῦς, his highest intellectual faculty, tells him to be right. On the word πληροφορείσθω see on 4:21 and cf. Clem. Rom. 42 πληροφορηθέντες διὰ τῆς ἀναστάσεως.

International Critical Commentary — older volumes (1896–1929), various authors — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword module.

Esteemeth every day alike (krinei pasan hJmeran). Alike is inserted. Lit., judgeth every day; subjects every day to moral scrutiny.

Be fully persuaded [πληροφορεισθω] . Better, Rev., assured. See on most surely believed, Luk 1:1.

In his own mind. "As a boat may pursue its course uninjured either in a narrow canal or in a spacious lake" (Bengel).

Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament (1887–1900) — public domain. Text from a community e-Sword/MySword module.