Introduction

We come now to the last major section of the book of Romans (14:1-15:13). This passage is a call to Christian unity despite, and in the face of, deeply felt differences of opinion. There are three issues of dispute: 1) eating of meat versus being vegetarian (v. 2), 2) considering all days alike versus observing special days (v. 5), and 3) drinking wine versus abstaining from wine (v. 21). It is sometimes called the passage on the weak and the strong because of the references to those whose faith is weak (14:1) and to those who are strong (15:1). Paul sides with the strong but he does fault both groups for various failures.

Therefore, Paul's position on these disputable matters is clear in broad sketch. The strong have the biblical position on these issues: they are in the right to include meat in their diet, they are correct in considering all days alike, and they are free to drink wine. But support of the strong and their views is not presented in a one-sided way, namely, that the strong are right and the weak are wrong, period. There are qualifications that need to be made that balance some things and put other things into better perspective.

One area needing balance and perspective is the reference to "all days" in contrast to considering one day more sacred than another (v. 5, NIV). The strong in faith consider "every day alike" and the weak regard "one day as special" (vs. 5-6). Paul says that no judging and criticizing is to go on over this difference for "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. It is to be done either way "to the Lord" and with "thanks to God" because live or die we belong to the Lord and live under obligation to Him and not to other Christians (vs. 6-8). So neither side should judge the other: "we will all stand before God's judgment seat" (v. 12).

The key problem here relates to the comprehensiveness of the "all" in "all days" and the specificity of the "one day." On one hand, does this refer to absolutely all days as it sounds being unqualified in the text? In the move from the OT to the NT have all days been now relegated to a commonness in which there is no distinct day on our calendar whether feast day or Sabbath day? On the other hand, does the reference to one day refer to the Sabbath and by extension the Christian Sabbath? If so this would mean that it is those who are weak in faith who hold to the Christian Sabbath as a special day. Or does "one day" refer to the Lord's Day (which for some is asking the same question and for others it is a different question from the Sabbath)? For biblical scholars the text here shows that Paul and the early church "did not take over the Decalogue as a whole" (Moo 842).

So I want to deal today with "Doubtful Days and the Lord's Day." Included here are the questions of the Decalogue as a whole and the notion of a Christian Sabbath as a particular (i.e., Are the Ten Commandments binding on Christians? Is the fourth commandment binding in the NT as the Christian Sabbath?). This is a topical or theological study today since Paul does not discuss the 4^th commandment explicitly nor does he discuss the Lord's Day. We have to do our best to bring these things together in order to preach the whole counsel of God. But this process of "bringing things together" is debated so we have some important work to do.

I will first discuss the harmony of Romans 14:5 and Revelation 1:10 (cf. systematic theology). Then I will cover the harmony of Revelation 1:10 with the rest of Scripture (cf. biblical theology).

1A. The harmony of Romans and Revelation

To harmonize we need to be clear, avoid contradiction, and do justice to each text. We will do this by developing three statements.

1B. First, Paul and John refer to different things

Stepping into the middle of this debate, here is the position I want to argue for. The doubtful days, the days of dispute at Rome, the days that are not binding on the strong Christian conscience do not include the Lord's Day or the Christian Sabbath. These doubtful days are best seen as Jewish holy days of feasts and Sabbaths that have passed away in the fulfillment brought by Christ. For the NT church it was once a very relevant and pressing matter whether or not to observe feast days like the feast of Unleavened Bread or the feast of Harvest (Ex. 23:14-16). We are still sorting out the elements of discontinuity from the elements of continuity as we live by both the OT and the NT today. Things now obvious to us were not so obvious to them. The Lord's Day (Rev. 1:10) must be understood as a reference to Sunday, the first day of the week. It is a special day, a day more sacred than the others of the week (cf. NIV, Rom. 14:5). So there is no contradiction between John and Paul. The Lord's Day is not within the category of "all the days under dispute at Rome."

2B. Second, justice is done to Paul by stressing a limited use of universal language

We do no injustice to Paul when we read "all days" as all the Jewish holy days that are now optional and no longer commanded. These days would be similar in nature to circumcision that is optional (Acts 16:3) and vows that are optional (Acts 21:20-26). Paul taught that circumcision was not necessary but he did not go around teaching that it ought not to be done. Some people took the optional things and made them necessary. Paul replies that each is to be persuaded in his own mind and these things may be practiced unto the Lord but the Lord does not require them. Consider how Paul could do the following and be consistent: a) He taught that circumcision means nothing (Gal. 6:12, 15), b) He refused to circumcise Titus (Gal. 2:3), c) He did not try to eliminate the practice of circumcision (Acts 21:21, 24), d) He circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). Thanksgiving Day and Labor Day are parallel examples in our culture; they are optional but not required.

3B. Third, justice is done to John by reading Lord's Day as Sunday

But if we insist that "all means all" in Romans 14:5, then to harmonize Scripture, we have reinterpret Revelation 1:10. It must then be viewed as a reference to "the day of the Lord," the future day of John's prophecy that makes up the whole book of Revelation (if Lord's Day is taken as Saturday we still have a sacred day versus every day being alike). To interpret it as a reference to the day of the Lord has a grammatical plausibility. The possessive "Joe's car" can be unpacked as "the car of Joe" or "the car that belongs to Joe."

There are two lines of thought on opposite poles regarding this way of interpreting "Lord's Day." One is that Romans 14:5 (taken comprehensively) supports the "day of the Lord" reading in Revelation 1:10. At the least, it is suggested, Paul causes us to remove the idea of a sacred or special day from John's writing. The other line of thought is a church history argument. We know from early church sources that back to some fifty years after John wrote Revelation the term "Lord's Day" is used exclusively to refer to resurrection Sunday. It is never used of Saturday. It is never used of a prophetic day, of the coming day of the Lord. Thus the universal language of Romans (all) is used to support removing Lord's Day from Revelation replacing it with day of the Lord. And early church history usage is used to support the reference to the Lord's Day in Revelation. It is very difficult to account for the use of Lord's Day by the early church if it is not rooted in John's usage of Lord's Day in Revelation 1:10.

But we have a way to solve this conflict of Lord's Day versus day of the Lord. We can simply look at the context in the book of Revelation. Does the context support the day of the Lord reading? That it does not do so is easy to see. It rests on one basic claim that John is transported into the future day of the Lord and the whole book of Revelation, on this view, must speak of that future day.

However, the entire prophecy of the book of Revelation does not take place in the time of the end, which is the time of the "great day of God" (Rev. 6:17, day of wrath; 16:14, day of final battle). The prophetic day of the Lord is a narrow concept referring to final judgment. That is not the entire theme of Revelation; the book moves in cycles toward the day of the Lord. It is on the Lord's Day that John receives the message of the book, that message concerns both things that are and that are to come, and a narrow topic within the things to come is the day of the Lord.

In summary, here are two reasons to restrict Paul's reference to some days not all and to preserve "Lord's Day" in Revelation 1:10. 1) Universal language often has limited scope. All days can easily refer to "all days at issue" at Rome that are not spelled out for us by Paul. 2) Both church history and the context of the book of Revelation support Lord's Day as a special/sacred day. It is a stretch beyond reach to try to remove Lord's Day/Sunday from Revelation 1:10 and it is a stretch beyond reach to try to put "day of the Lord" in its place.

Therefore we have two separate matters: we have doubtful days and we have the Lord's Day. Obligation does not apply to doubtful days but it does apply to the Lord's Day.

2A. The harmony of Romans and Revelation with the rest of Scripture

Now we shift the orientation of our work to biblical theology or the history of redemption. We can sketch what is involved by seeing Revelation 1:10 as the tip of an iceberg. Let me outline what lies below the surface in a number of steps.

1) Jesus has a day that belongs to Him; it is Sunday, the first day of the week, the day of His resurrection. Jesus is Lord of Sunday (Rev. 1:10).

2) The Son of man is the Lord of the Sabbath (Mk. 2:28).

3) His Lordship of the Sabbath began in a redemptively unique sense by means of the resurrection. Are we to think that Jesus was only Lord of the Sabbath as incarnate Son of man for the three short years of His public ministry? Are we to think that Jesus clarified the true spirit and intent of Sabbath keeping and had that clarification preserved in the Gospels for all time with no direct relevance to the church He came to build? No must be the answer to both questions. The incarnate Son of man became Lord and Christ by the resurrection. His clarifications of Sabbath keeping show us how to live under His Lordship since the resurrection.

4) Therefore, Jesus exercises His rule over the Sabbath on Sunday.

5) Consequently, the Sabbath day that belonged to Jehovah in the OT (Ex. 20:9, "the seventh day is a Sabbath to the Lord your God," Isa. 58:13, "the Lord's holy day") now belongs to Jesus our risen Lord. He rules Sunday as Sovereign God and Sabbath King. The fourth commandment is His to give and ours to obey under His authority.

6) In turn, Sunday is to be rightly viewed as the Christian Sabbath. It is the Christian, new covenant, new wineskin form of the Sabbath. Thus there are two sides indicated by the language, Christian Sabbath. It is the OT Sabbath in a new, Christian, wineskin.

We must coordinate Romans 14:5 and Revelation 1:10 with Colossians 2, which indicates that the Jewish Sabbath is a shadow that looks to fulfillment in Christ (i.e., the Jewish Sabbaths, feasts, and new moons). But the fulfillment is both now and not yet. The Jewish day must give way to the present reality of fulfillment, to the now of fulfillment (the old wineskin is unusable per se). But the ultimate fulfillment of the Sabbath promise remains not yet fulfilled because eternal Sabbath rest has not yet arrived (Heb. 4:1-11). Since the type remains as long as the anti-type is unfulfilled (or the promise remains as long as the reality promised is yet to come), then there must be a new wineskin form of the Sabbath ruled by Christ and observed by Christians.

7) The six and one pattern for life on earth continues. But it continues in a new form, a fulfillment form, a Christian form under obedience to Christ. He is Lord of every day. He sets the pattern in which we are to find our delight in life. It is His six and one pattern that is not given to reduce our pleasure or harm us in some way. Exactly the opposite is the case. He has given this structure to increase our pleasure in life and to protect us. Remember that the law is not just a boundary that says, "keep out." It is a hedge that protects. This view stresses the continuity of the 6-1 across history.

8) The inauguration of redemption is like the inauguration of creation

Again, there is a sense in which Jesus becomes both Lord and Christ by the resurrection (Acts 2:36, 32). In the same sense He became the Son of God when He was raised from the dead (Acts 13:33; Rom. 1:4). Consequently, the day that the Lord has made for us to rejoice and be glad in is resurrection day (Ps. 118:22-24), which brings the kingdom theme into view. Using Psalm 118, Jesus leads us in thought from the resurrection capstone marvel to the giving of the kingdom to a people who will produce its fruit (Matt. 21:42-43). Peter therefore not only preaches that God made Jesus, the one crucified, both Lord and Christ (Act 2:36, 32) but the risen Christ is the capstone in the building of God's kingdom. These passages all show that by the resurrection the kingdom of God and the kingship of Christ reach a new beginning. A new phase in the coming of the kingdom commenced with the resurrection. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that resurrection is an inaugural day and as such is the Lord's Day in a way analogous to how the seventh day was an inaugural day and as such was set apart as a day to be observed to the Lord. It inaugurates His Sabbath Kingship; by diligent observance we submit ourselves, gladly, to His Sabbath.

Conclusion

All the lines of evidence converge in the conclusion that the Lord's Day is Sunday, a day of worship that belongs distinctively to the risen Lord Jesus. His lordship over the Sabbath is exercised on the first day of the week. Thus Sunday is the new-wineskin-Christian day to observe in obedience by those who live under the authority of Christ as Sabbath King.

Some days have an optional quality about them. But Sunday is not that kind of day. It is a day that belongs to the Lord Jesus. We are to remember His day, remember the Sabbath day to keep it holy and to sanctify it to the Lord our God. It is a day of delight and an honorable day because Jesus is our delight in life and deserves all glory and honor.