Romans 14:5-6 One man esteems one day above another: another esteems every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind.… It has been argued — "If we adopt the supposition, that a Christian Sabbath law was then in force, the propriety of the apostle's 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 apostle's 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 man's own mind. 2. As to the latter — it is clear that if the reference be to it, the apostle's 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 apostle's 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.) Parallel Verses KJV: One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. |
    |