Does Romans 14:5-6 say that the weekly Sabbath is optional?

Excerpt: Romans 14:5 indicates that each person must decide for himself whether to regard one day above another. This is often interpreted as that the Sabbath is optional. But verse 5 must be read within its context, and the context is a dispute in the church about eating meat. In this context, the days in verse 5 probably were days on which some Christians thought one should abstain from eating meat. Then verse 5 does not mean that the Sabbath is optional.

Vegetables only

The first four verses of Romans 14 read that we are allowed to eat all things, but some Christians in Rome, being weak in the faith, believed that Christians should eat vegetables only.  Paul instructs mature Christians not to judge such a person.  Then verses 5 and 6 continue:

Romans 14:5 One person regards one day above another,
another regards every day alike.
Each person must be fully convinced in his own mind.
14:6 He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord,
and he who eats, does so for the Lord, for he gives thanks to God;
and he who eats not, for the Lord he does not eat, and gives thanks to God.


Romans 14:5 and 6 do not use the word “meat”, but the context of the previous verses implies that verse 6 refers to eating meat.

In the first four verses the focus is on eating meat.  Verse 5 shifts the focus to days, but verse 6 shifts the focus back to eating meat.  The statements about days are therefore surrounded by arguments about eating meat.

Verse 6 implies three categories of people:

1.  He who observes the day.
2.  He who eats.
3.  He who eats not.

The KJV adds one more people category, between the first and second, namely “He that regardeth not the day”.  However, the Pulpit Commentary says of this phrase, ‘omit, as ill-supported, as well as unnecessary’.

The word “alike” in Romans 14:5 has been added by the translators.  In the view of some interpreters, this word distorts the meaning of the passage, but that word seems to be implied by the alternative, which is to regard “one day above another”.

According to verse 5, it is equally acceptable to regard “one day above another” and to regard “every day alike”.


Many interpreters believe that Paul includes the weekly Sabbath in the “day” in these verses.  From that, they conclude that Sabbath observance is optional.  The main purpose of this article is to address this matter.

Blessed and sanctified at creation

The Sabbath is huge in the Old Testament.  The seventh day was sanctified and blessed at creation and included in the Ten Commandments, together with nine other eternal principles, as a Sabbath (day of rest).  The Sabbath was the sign of the covenant Sabbath-breaking was the sign of Israel’s unfaithfulness, leading to their captivity into Babylon.  (See Sabbath in the Law of Moses.)

The Sabbath is huge in the gospels.  Christ deliberately sought confrontation with the Jews by healing on the Sabbath. His Sabbath-breaking, as viewed by the Pharisees, was one of the main reasons for His crucifixion: “For this reason therefore the Jews were seeking all the more to kill Him, because He not only was breaking the Sabbath but also was calling God His own Father, making Himself equal with God” (John 5:18, see also 9:16). (See Deliberately breaking the Sabbath.)

The Sabbath was huge in the first years of the church, when the church still existed as a Jewish sect and complied with all Jewish laws, including the Sabbath (See Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church).

The Sabbath controversy is still huge today.  The older protestant (reformed) churches adhere to the Sabbath commandment, but now on the first day of the week (Sunday).  But the newer churches view the Sabbath as a ceremonial commandment that has passed away at the Cross.

In contrast, the Sabbath is a non-issue in the New Testament letters. Paul mentioned the Sabbath explicitly only once in his letters, and that in a technical term that refers to the entire system of Jewish holy days.  (See Feasts … New Moons … Sabbaths.) There are only three of perhaps four texts in Paul’s writings that might be relevant to the Sabbath.  This means that the Sabbath, by itself, was not a matter of controversy in the first century.  Either everybody kept the Sabbath, or nobody kept the Sabbath.

Romans 14:5 is one of the few statements by Paul that possibly are relevant to the Sabbath.  It is therefore very important to understand what this verse says about the Sabbath.


For the reasons below it is proposed here that Romans 14:5 does not say that the Sabbath is optional:

First, if Romans 14:5 applies to the Sabbath, then Paul contradicted himself.

In Galatians, Paul rebukes Christians for observing “days” (Gal. 4:10), but here in Romans, he allows each person to decide for himself whether to regard one day above another.  In Galatians, some Christians were compelling other Christians to comply with the Law of Moses (Gal. 6:12; 2:14). It is therefore quite possible that the “days and months and seasons and years” in Galatians 4:10 are the Old Testament feasts and special days. The “days” therefore might include the Sabbath.  If the days in Romans 14:5 also include the Sabbath, then it would be rather inconsistent of Paul to reprimand the Galatians for doing the same thing that he allows the Romans to decide about each man for himself.

Second, Romans 14 is devoid of Jewish elements.
Therefore it does not deal with the Old Testament Laws.

Nothing is mentioned in Romans 14 that is specifically Jewish.

As shown in a separate article, even the word unclean in verse 14 does not refer to the Old Testament unclean meats.

The main controversy in the chapter is abstinence from meat and wine (14:2, 21).  This is not a controversy over the Law of Moses. The Old Testament permits the eating of meat. Leviticus 11 explains the difference between clean and unclean animals.  It explains what meat is allowed as food.  It does not prohibit the eating of meat. Neither does the Old Testament forbid the drinking of wine. Consequently, the strong man who “has faith that he may eat all things” (Rom 14:2) is not asserting his freedom from the Law of Moses.

If Romans 14 is devoid of Jewish elements, then the days in verse 5 do not relate to the Jewish Laws either.

Third, these were matters of opinion.

The chapter commences with the instruction, “accept the one who is weak in faith, but not for the purpose of passing judgment on his opinions” (14:1).  The current verse indicates that “each person must be fully convinced in his own mind“.  Later in the chapter, we read that “to him who thinks anything to be unclean, to him it is unclean” (14:14) and “the faith which you have, have as your own conviction” (14:22).  These are confirmations that, what is discussed in this chapter, are matters about which the Bible does not give clear guidance.  Therefore the Sabbath could not have been part of the controversy.

Fourth, Paul would not have said each person must decide for himself with respect to something so huge as the Sabbath.

Above it was mentioned how huge the Sabbath was in the Old Testament, in the gospels and in the Early Church.  It is not likely that Paul would leave something, as huge as the Sabbath, as optional. It is simply unthinkable that Paul would have said that each person must decide for himself whether any of the Ten Commandments are still relevant.

In the Epistle to the Galatians, where Paul opposed the Christians who compelled other Christians to adhere to the law of Moses, Paul has nothing good to say about the law.  But in the book which we are currently discussing (Romans) Paul says many positive things about the law.  He describes God’s law as “holy, just and good” (7:12).  He describes himself as “serving the law of God” (7:25). In the closing verses of Romans 13, he links the second table of the Ten Commandments to the great commandment to love one’s neighbor. He explicitly mentions four of the Ten Commandments, namely adultery, murder, stealing and coveting, and then adds, “and if there is any other commandment, it is summed up in this saying, “YOU SHALL LOVE YOUR NEIGHBOR AS YOURSELF” (Rom. 13:8-10). After saying these wonderful things about the law, would he then ten verses later describe one of the Ten as optional?

Early Church

The weekly Sabbath was extremely important to the Jews, and since the early church consisted only of Jews, continuing all Jewish practices, the church at first observed the Sabbath. (See Jerusalem Phase of the Early Church.) Paul also, during his life as an apostle of God, frequently met with the Jews on the Sabbath (Acts 17:2; 18:4).  The Sabbath, therefore, was experienced as important in the early church.  For these reasons, any change to the Sabbath would have caused serious controversy. If Paul in Romans 14:5 was advising the church to move away from the Sabbath, he would have said it loudly and clearly. He would not have interjection it as a side issue into a chapter that deals with a dispute over eating meat.

Since we must “abhor (hate) what is evil” (Romans 12:9), we should rather reverse the logic and argue, when Paul says “each person must be fully convinced in his own mind” with respect to days (Romans 14:5), that such days cannot include something as huge as the Sabbath.

Fifth. these were “days” on which the eating or non-eating of meat was regarded as important.

The entire Romans 14 is about Christians judging each other with respect to eating meat.  The statements in verses 5 and 6 that deal with days are surrounded on all sides by arguments about judging one another for eating meat.   Paul wrote extremely context-dependent.  If we read one of his sentences out of context, we are in trouble.  To properly understand Paul, we must interpret every sentence in the context of the surrounding sentences.  We must, therefore, understand the statements about days as part of the discussion of eating meat.  It is therefore proposed that these were “days” that were regarded as special days as far as eating meat was concerned.

The two contrasts support this conclusion.  In verse 2 Paul contrasts the person that eats meat with the one that “eats only vegetables”. Then, in verse 5, he contrasts the man that “esteems one day as better than another” with the man that “esteems all days alike”. In verse 6 he again contrasts the man that eats meat with the one that only eats vegetables.  These contrasts, in close proximity, seem to be parallel. This supports the notion that these were days on which the eating or non-eating of meat was regarded as important.

In other words, these verses do not describe four, but only two people groups:

1. The “weak” don’t eat meat on certain days.
2. Mature Christians regard all days alike as far as eating meat is concerned.

As discussed in the article New converts from idolatry viewed meat sacrificed to idols as unholy, the meat-issue probably had something to do with meat offered to idols.  Some Christians who previously were idol-worshipers believed that meat offered to idols is unholy (1 Cor. 8:7-9); not suitable for Christian consumption.

The days in Romans 14:5 might have included the Sabbath, but if they did, then they do not speak to whether the Sabbath must be observed, but to how the Sabbath must be observed.  More specifically, these verses address the issue of eating meat on the Sabbath.

Lastly, if Romans 14:5 applies to the weekly day of worship, and every person therefore may decide for himself on which day to worship, then the church no longer has a weekly day of worship.

The Jews of the Old Testament and all Christians today have a weekly day of public worship. That seems to be good practice and consistent with the establishment of the seven-day cycle as part of the creation. Also, Paul himself “customarily” (Acts 17:2) met with “Jews and Greeks” on the Sabbath in the synagogue (Acts 18:4). This does not prove that Paul observed the Sabbath, but the point is that a weekly day of worship was integral to the environment in which Christians found themselves.  Since regarding “one day above another” (14:5) is optional (14:6), it is fair to assume that it is the “weak” that still clung to special days.  The “strong” (15:1) ”regards every day alike“.  If this applies to the weekly day of worship, then the church no longer has a joint weekly day of worship.  Would that be Paul’s intention, seeing what confusion it would cause?


Just like verse 1 will be misunderstood unless it is read in the context of a dispute about eating meat, verse 5 will also be misunderstood unless it is read in the same context.  The days in 14:5 cannot be separated from eating meat.




For a more complete description of these articles, see the List of available articles on Romans. For general discussions of theology, I recommend Graham Maxwell, who you will find on the Pineknoll website.

Paul’s letter to the Romans: List of available articles

God will not override human freedom. God does not compel people in this life because He will not compel people in the life to come. He gives us evidence of “His invisible attributes.” If we reject this evidence, there is nothing else that He can or will do, and He gives us up to our lusts.

In the End-Time Judgment, God will judge all people in the same way. It is not the hearers of the Law who are just before God, for “the doers of the Law will be justified.” Even people that never heard about Christ, will be saved because they have the “Law written in their hearts.”

ROMANS 3:1-8
These 8 verses discuss the same topic as Romans 9 and 11, namely the causes and consequences of Israel’s rejection of Christ. God elected a remnant from Israel but included believing Gentiles in this chosen remnant.


This is a study of Romans 9 and 11, but the purpose is to determine who Israel in the Book of Revelation is. In Paul’s day, God elected a remnant from Israel but included believing Gentiles in this chosen remnant. God did not annul His word. Israel’s promises and covenants remain but now belong to this chosen remnant.

This is a summary of the previous rather long article.  While the main article more or less sequentially works through Romans 9 – 11, this article discusses these chapters thematically.  The chosen remnant is a continuation of Israel of the Old Testament; not a new entity with new founding principles.

Romans 9 and 11 make many strong election statements, but this is an election to a mission, not to salvation. God did not elect Israel to save that nation alone. God elected Israel as a means through which God could save the nations of the world. Through Israel, God maintained His word on earth and gave the world its Messiah.


The dispute over unclean meat in Romans 14 was not a dispute over the Law of Moses. It was probably caused by superstitious converts from idolatry who assumed that eating meat offered to idols gave idols power over them.

“Nothing is unclean in itself” (Romans 14:14). The Greek word koinos, translated here as “unclean,” does not refer to the unclean animals of the Old Testament. The dispute was not about Biblical prescripts but about the opinions of people with respect to what food is unsuitable for Christian consumption.

1 Corinthians 8 and 10 are very similar to Romans 14 and explain why the ‘weak’ Christians did not eat meat sacrificed to idols, namely that new converts, based on their experience with idolatry, regarded eating meat as idol worship.

Each person must decide for himself whether to regard one day above another (Romans 14:5). This is often interpreted as that the Sabbath is optional. But, in the context of a dispute about food, the “days” in verse 5 probably were days on which some Christians abstained from eating meat. 

“A man is justified by faith apart from works of the Law” (e.g. Rom. 3:27), but all people will all be judged by their deeds before the Judgment Seat of God. What is the difference between “deeds” and “the works of the Law?”

If eating meat may cause a weaker brother to stumble, rather abstain.

Other Articles