Replies

Romans chapter 14.

Ahhh...okay. Reading Romans 14 it's obvious that the whole chapter has something to do with eating and drinking, not sabbath keeping. The word for sabbath is never mentioned.

So to keep the context of the chapter clear, it's necessary to determine what is it about eating and drinking that this verse could be referring to:

Romans 14:5, 6: "One person esteems one day above another, another esteems every day alike. Let each be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it to the Lord; and he who does not observe the day, to the Lord he does not observe it. He who eats, eats to the Lord . . ."

Concerning this passage, Expositors Bible Dictionary says "The close contextual association as a time with eating suggests that Paul has in mind a special day set apart for feasting or as a time for fasting."

Certain jews fasted on specific days of the week. The controversy here was probably about those who fasted versus those who didn't, or possibly vegetarianism versus not. Either way it's about eating. The problem with most Christian doctrine is that they approach this verse with the supposition that since they don't believe in the validity of the sabbath, that this verse must be talking about that.

No, most Christians start with the presupposition that the way the church traditionally taught how a verse was interpreted was the way to interpret it., Nelson's Bible Dictionary notes that in Acts 15:20, 28-29 the Jerusalem council did not demand Sabbath observance. Again, Nelson's says that Paul's principle of Christian liberty about holy places and days comes from the Lord himself, when Jesus said he was greater than the temple (Matt 12:8)and Lord of the Sabbath (Mark 2:27-28)

The phrase "the Lord's Day" appears in Rev 1:10. Also, early Christians worshiped on the Lord's Day, ie Sunday, which was the day that Christ rose from the dead (1 Cor 16:2)

Supposedly, the majority of Christians accepted, like Justin Martyr, the idea that a) we need a day to worship, but b) in the new covenant, that day should be the day of the Lord. Indeed, Sunday is called "the Lord's Day", not necessarily the sabbath.

Now, if someone 1500 years later reads the bible and decides that Christians--not just Catholics, but the Syriac church in India and the Orthodox in Ethiopia (neither of whom were under Constantine)-- had it wrong for 1500 years, he or she is allowed to go out and start their own church.

However, it makes one wonder where the Lord was for 1500 years.

Personally, I agree with Paul that the whole thing is merely a way to sow confusion in the churches.