Truth Magazine

By Bill McMilleon

In Romans 14:5 Paul wrote, “One man regards one day above another, another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind. He who observes the day, observes it for the Lord.”

Does this passage teach that our worship services on the first day of the week are only a matter of personal preference; that one day is as good as another? Can this verse be applied to the Seventh Day Adventist position? Should we not allow the Adventists the liberty of worshiping on the Sabbath without condemnation? These are questions which have occasionally come to me from young Christians or older ones who should know better.

The First Day Assembly

Before dealing with the context of Romans 14, it is in order to consider what the New Testament Scriptures say about the first day of the week.

In Hebrews 10:25 we are told “to stimulate one another to love and good deeds, not forsaking our own assembling together.” We can easily see from this verse, though negatively stated, that we are commanded to assemble. Granted, the day of the assembly is not found here, but can be elicited from a study of other pertinent passages.

In 1 Corinthians 11:17-34 Paul had to give specific instructions concerning observance of the Lord’s Supper. In v. 20 Paul says, “Therefore when you meet together it is not to eat the Lord’s Supper.” If you continue reading, the reason for Paul’s statement becomes obvious (i. e. their abuse in its observance). The point to be emphasized here is that, even though their manner of observance was faulty, their coming together was not rebuked. The Lord’s Supper was to be celebrated when they came together. Now, when did they come together? The only passage directly related to our subject at hand is Acts 20:7 which states, “And on the first day of the week, when we were gathered together to break bread.” Since Paul was present (v. 7b) and participated, this assembly for the purpose of breaking bread (Lord’s Supper) had apostolic approval (see Phil. 4:9). While it is true that the assembly in Act 20 took place in Troas, the concept would have universal application. Paul taught the same thing in all the churches (1 Cor. 4:17).

What have we learned?

(1) We are commanded to assemble (Heb. 10:25).

(2) That the purpose for this assembly is the commemoration of the Lord’s Supper (1 Cor. 11).

(3) By apostolic example we know the time of this observance (Acts 20:7).

The foregoing facts establish the New Testament pattern for the specific day of worship under the New Covenant. If Paul is saying in Romans 14 that each man is left to his own convictions in this matter, he has contradicted not only himself, but the other writers of the New Testament Scriptures.

Context And Situation

I firmly believe that most, if not all, difficulties in understanding a particular Scripture can be resolved by a close examination of the context and situation. With this thought in mind, let us examine Romans 14:5.

In Romans 14 Paul uses phraseology which demands that we should understand these verses as applying to individual action. Notice the language, “one who is weak” (v. 1), “one man has faith” (v. 2), and “one man regards one day” (v. 5). It is obvious (at least to me) that Paul is not dealing with group or collective action and, therefore, has nothing at all to do with the first day of the week assembly.

Jews that were converted to Christianity would initially hold to many things found in the Old Covenant until they were spiritually mature enough to recognize these things as not belonging to the New Testament system. That is why Paul calls them “weak in the faith” in verse one. Thayer says that this word “weak” means, “want of strength or capacity; to understand a thing.” If an individual felt, due to his “inability to understand a thing” in the faith, that he had to honor a day not necessarily belonging to the New Testament system, he was allowed that liberty. The rub came when he would try to make his liberty a law binding on someone else (notice v. 4). This does not excuse remaining immature or “weak” but does give some allowance for time to grow (Heb. 5:12, 13). Any thinking person can see that the Adventist position is not, even in the remotest sense, an exercise in individual liberty by immature Christians. They not only would bind the Sabbath upon all but take it to the extreme of anathematizing those who observe the first day of the week. The following statements from their own writings show this to be true. Referring to the “mark of the beast” in Revelation 19:20 they may, “Sunday keeping must be the mark of the beast” (The Marvel of the Nations, Uriah Smith, pg. 183). Also, in the August 1850 issue of the Advent Review Extra on pages 10 and 11, we have this statement, “Sunday keeping is an institution of the first beast and all who submit to obey this institution emphatically worship the first beast and receive his mark, `the mark of the beast’. Those who worship the beast and his image by observing the first day are certainly idolaters, as were the worshipers of the golden calf.”

I do not have to be an exegetical genius to recognize that this type of arbitrary definition of the mark of the beast is erroneous. The Adventists cannot escape the fact that their all inclusive condemnation of those who observe the first day of the week would cast the apostle Paul into Hell! Read Acts 20:7 and Revelation 14:9-11 along with their exegesis (?) on the mark of the beast which is found above and see if this is not so!

The Spirit inspired apostle wrote, “Let no one act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival, or a new moon or a Sabbath day” (Col. 2:16). This includes the Adventists.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 210
April 7, 1983

By Earl E. Robertson

The Bible is replete with instruction, both positive and negative, for the behavioral patterns of acceptable living for all men. This is a most difficult lesson for men to learn, even some professing Christianity. We all must recognize that there are no alternatives when God speaks. He blesses the obedient, and condemns the disobedient. This lesson God has stressed from Eden to the present. His word continues to say the same, but men like Adam of old, continue to find what they conceive to be an acceptable alternative to obedience (see 1 Sam. 15:19-25).

The pressures of life, witnessed in all relationships of human endeavor, have a tendency to cause man to move from complete honesty with God and man that he becomes nothing more than a “man pleaser.” The giving in to these various pressures do not justify our actions; it is never right to do wrong (Rom. 3:8). To not do the right thing is to do the wrong (cf. James 4:I7). Paul says, “Servants, obey in all things your masters according to the flesh; not with eye-service, as men pleasers; but in singleness of heart, fearing God: and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the Lord, and not unto men” (Col. 3:22, 23). The same is stated in Ephesians 6:5-7. These are the only times this word is used in the New Testament and is herein used in the nominative plural. The basic idea of the word is: “studying to please men, courting the favor of men!”

It seems rather strange that a man would make more effort to please men than he would to please God. God says, “Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together” (Heb. 10:25), but men will do this purely out of desire to please some human being! One who makes no effort to do the will of God in this matter, but rather justifies his doings as a “man pleaser” has no right to the fellowship of God or His people. Some Christians (?) have visitors or they go visiting on the Lord’s day, but to be pleasing to all concerned (but the Lord), they just visit and forget all about the Lord! The basic, underlying sin in this behavior is “men pleaser.” There is no love and reverence for God in this, all efforts are to please men. Such, as Christians, need to publicly repent that God and His people may forgive and the sinner be restored. Too many people take this matter lightly and it is eternally dangerous!

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 209
April 7, 1983

By Thomas L. Andrews

Our imagination can be very useful when it is channeled toward spiritual evaluation. One often wonders what it would be like to live in another time or if you had actually been someone else. There might be profit in this if we will be objective in answering appropriate questions. Choose a time similar to ours. For instance, what if you had been Noah? That is, if Noah had your characteristics, would the Bible story have to be changed? We know the story of Noah as recorded in Genesis 6-7; you know it yourself, so let’s consider them together.

The story of the flood and a man “perfect in his generations” is a very familiar one. God was disgusted with the continually sinful lives of the people of that time. Finding Noah to be a righteous man, God gave a very unique command. Build an ark to save yourself! Is the world so different today? Peter’s cry on Pentecost is still appropriate today: “Save yourselves.” Put yourself in Noah’s place. What would you have done when God gave you the command?

If you had been Noah, would you have found favor in the eyes of God? The matter is of initial importance. What kind of a life is yours? How often do you inventory your spiritual qualities? This is a matter that is too serious to simply take for granted. Is your life or character fit for spiritual work? At times, our hands are dirty, consequently we can’t do a particular job until we wash them. So, our lives might be stained with sin or unprepared.

Preparation is essential for one to be useful in God’s kingdom. First, there must be the remission of sins by becoming a Christian. Our preparation is just beginning. We must study. By diligently applying ourselves to God’s word we may be an approved workman (2 Tim. 2:15). Readiness is a factor that sometimes is overlooked. Properly prepared Christians are ready and willing to take up some spiritual work. Would you have found favor in the sight of God?

If you had been Noah, would you have built the ark? Would you have taken the responsibility? Building the ark was a major construction job. Undoubtedly, no such structure had been built before and there was little evidence for its need of usefulness. A boat 450 feet long is gigantic even by today’s standards, much less in Noah’s time. A common reaction is “I don’t want to take on so much responsibility.”

There is responsibility in being a Christian. One cannot evade this and have any hope of heaven. The idea of not taking any responsibility as a member of the church is absurd. Yet men and women are frequently guilty of this. When some work is mentioned as needing to be done it is easy to say, “Let someone else do it” or “I’ll help but I won’t be responsible for it.” Such reasoning hinders all Christians in serving the Lord and reaching their potential as servants of God. We can’t bury our “talents” in earth and expect to be rewarded (Mt. 25:14-30). The early disciples took the Lord’s cause to heart as they “went everywhere preaching the word” (Acts 8:4). When we refuse to teach others or fail to do our part in the church, we demonstrate that we would not have built the ark.

If you had been Noah, would you have built the ark according to God’s pattern? Innovation has no place when it comes to doing God’s work. That is, where God’s will is specific we must act accordingly. This has been an acute problem for men through the ages. Learn this lesson. God had a definite idea about the plans for the building of the ark. That is why he specified the materials, dimensions, and design. Noah did not have the right to change anything that God had told him. All of the work had to be done according to God’s pattern.

The church has been plagued by institutional issues in recent times and the effect of modernism is easily seen. Some Christians will tow the line on the “issues” but fail to see or show little concern about the rest of God’s pattern. The home is very much a part of God’s plan. His way is right. What one wears, how one lives from day to day in relation to others are questions whose answers are to be found in God’s pattern. God has a plan for your life. Are you following it?

If you had been Noah, would you have been satisfied to save only those that God said should be? Read that again. This last question is very serious and quite appropriate for our times. Modernists are seeking to take away responsibility for one’s action. However, this principle has an eternal quality about it that we need to face up to. God has set forth the conditions of salvation. Disobedient people will be lost. In Noah’s day, God closed the door to the ark. No doubt, when the water began to rise there were several people that remembered the preaching of Noah and wanted to get in, but the door was closed.

Sympathy and efforts are misplaced today. Rather than trying to see how someone could be saved out of the church we ought to be trying to get them in the church. Instead of worrying whether God will have mercy on some good person we ought to be trying to teach them the truth.

Yes, people are going to be lost and the sooner we accept that fact, the sooner we will begin to work at saving some. Are you satisfied with God’s way? Then let’s act like it.

What if you had been Noah?

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, pp. 208-209
April 7, 1983

By Jimmy Tuten

When Martha complained to Jesus that her sister Mary had neglected the housework in order to listen to spiritual teaching, He answered, “Martha, Martha, thou art anxious and troubled about many things, but one thing is needful; for Mary hath chosen the good part which shall not be taken away from her” (Luke 10:38-42). How deeply these words should cut into the hearts of many Christians today who fail to choose the good part of life. Too many are “cumbered about much serving” and have no time to listen to the wonderful words of life.

But the men are guilty of this as well as the worldly minded “Martha’s.” Too often we get so involved in the little things that we overlook the things that really matter. We become “entangled in the affairs of this life” and thus fail to please our Lord (2 Tim. 2:2). We have to have the yard mowed and the house cleaned. We spend much time working out in the garden and washing the car, but what about the Lord? How concerned are we about the time we spend studying His Word and teaching it to others?

Christ did not rebuke Martha for doing her cooking and serving. But she was wrong for putting more emphasis on that than on spiritual matters.

Neither will we be in error by washing the car, mowing the grass, or cleaning the house. The question is, “Which comes first?” Which is more important? Let us not make the mistake Martha made by getting involved in unimportant things to the neglect of the things that really matter.

Guardian of Truth XXVII: 6, p. 208
April 7, 1983