John Murray on Romans 14:5 and the Weekly Sabbath

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

Pastor David referenced Romans 14:5 in last Sunday’s sermon as a text that is often cited as evidence that the 4^th commandment no longer applies to Christians. It is stated that Paul is teaching in Rom 14:5 that all days are alike for the Christian, and thus implying that the 4^th commandment which requires observance of a “special” day is now a matter of indifference. A popular study bible expresses this view in its commentary on the verse: “What is remarkable is that the Sabbath is no longer a binding commitment for Paul but a matter of one’s personal conviction. Unlike the other nine commandments, the Sabbath commandment seems to have been part of the ‘ceremonial laws’ of the Mosaic Covenant…(and) are no longer binding on new covenant believers.”

Despite the surface plausibility of such an interpretation, I do not believe that Paul’s intention was to set aside the 4^th commandment for Christians. In what follows, I summarize the arguments of Systematic Theologian John Murray, who addressed this very question in an appendix of his Romans commentary. First, Murray lists several implications of adopting the interpretation that Romans 14:5 abolishes the weekly Sabbath:

1. The 4^th commandment then no longer has binding authority upon Christians. The observance of one day in seven would be abrogated and in the same category of other ceremonial rites of the Mosaic economy. To insist on observing a Sabbath day would be just as ‘Judiazing’ as to demand the continuance of the Levitical feasts.

2. The first day of the week would no longer have any prescribed religious significance. It cannot properly be regarded as the Lord’s day in distinction from the way in which any other day of the week is to be lived in devotion and service to Christ.

3. Observing the Sabbath as a day commemorating the Lord’s resurrection would then be a feature of the weak brother! The strong brother would be one who recognized that observing a weekly Sabbath was unnecessary.

Next, Murray lists several reasons against interpreting Romans 14:5 as abolishing the 4^th commandment:

1. The Sabbath is a creation ordinance and did not begin with the Mosaic Covenant (Gen 2:2-3. This is a key point, note how the Study Bible quotation above assumes that the Sabbath originated with the Mosaic Covenant). Further, to assume that the Sabbath no longer applies is to assume that the pattern provided by God himself in the work of creation and which Christ declared is a benefit for man (Mark 2:27-28) no longer has any relevance for the regulation of man’s life on earth. It also assumes that only 9 of the 10 commandments have authority for Christians, of which there is no evidence at all.

2. The N.T. recognizes the first day of the week as having a special significance because Jesus rose from the dead on this day (Acts 20:7; 1 Cor 16:2, Rev 1:10). If Paul in Romans 14:5 implies that all distinctions of days has been obliterated, then there would have been no legitimacy for the early church and apostles to recognize the first day of the week as the Lord’s day in this way.

3. Romans 14:5 is best understood as referring to the ceremonial holy days of the Levitical institution. This understanding fits perfectly in the context of Romans 14 and with the teaching of Scripture as a whole. To include the weekly Sabbath as falling under the scope of Paul’s statement goes beyond the exegetical warrant of the text and contradicts clear principals that are embedded in the total witness of Scripture.

Bottom Line: We still have 10 commandments, not 9