Romans 14:1-6
1 Him that is weak in the faith receive ye, but not to doubtful disputations. 2 For one believeth that he may eat all things: another, who is weak, eateth herbs. 3 Let not him that eateth despise him that eateth not; and let not him which eateth not judge him that eateth: for God hath received him. 4 Who art thou that judgest another man’s servant? to his own master he standeth or falleth. Yea, he shall be holden up: for God is able to make him stand. 5 One man esteemeth one day above another: another esteemeth every day alike. Let every man be fully persuaded in his own mind. 6 He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it. He that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
There are Sunday-observers (those who keep what is wrongly called “the LORD’s day”) who would wrongly use Romans 14 to justify not needing to keep the Sabbath on the seventh day. They would argue that Romans 14 allows Christians to keep the Sabbath on any day which they please, or even to disregard Sabbath-keeping altogether. Moreover, these same persons would use Romans 14 to justify eating any type of food whether clean or unclean. Yet, it is almost certain that these persons would not support using Romans 14 to justify the eating of blood (Acts 15:29) or of any animal that dies from strangulation (Acts 15:29) or any animal knowingly sacrificed to idols (Acts 15:29). Such certainty is based upon the explicit prohibition against these forbidden foods that was promulgated at the Jerusalem council of Acts 15 (Acts 15:20,28-29). Nor would I fault the Sunday-observer for this stance. For rational Christians must allow for the idea that Paul took for granted that his readers would know to exclude such foods from the expression: “one believeth that he may eat all things” (Romans 14:2). After all, Romans 14 is being addressed to believers exclusively. Indeed, the rationale behind the Sunday-observer’s refusal to include the meat of idolatry, blood or strangled animals among the foods which are permissible for a believer to consume is flawless. After all, in Acts 15:28 the Holy Spirit deemed it necessary that New Covenant believers observe these two commandmentsㅡ commandments which, by the way, are explicit citations from the wrongly-thought- to-be-abolished Mosaic Law (i.e., eating meat sacrificed to idols Exodus 34:15; i.e. eating blood Leviticus 7:26; eating strangled animals Leviticus 17:13).
Yet, in a rank display of inconsistency, the Sunday-observer will fail to apply the same rationale towards the exclusion of the Sabbath from the expression: “another esteemeth every day alike” (Romans 14:5). Why wouldn’t Paul also take for granted that his readers would know to exclude the Sabbath from that expression? After all, in Isaiah 56:1-8, the Holy Spirit expressly commands Gentiles who would embrace the New Covenant to also keep the Sabbath. Because the Isaiah 56 mandate for Gentiles to keep the Sabbath is not only explicit, but also tethered to the New Covenant offer, and then repeated thrice, the believer can no longer argue that Sabbath observance or the day on which it falls is merely a matter of preference. Else, consistency would force him to also conclude that eating blood or strangled animals is merely a matter of preference in spite of the explicit prohibitions given to Gentile believers in Acts 15:20,28-29.
Those who have some facility with the discipline of logic might easily recognize that each of Paul’s two propositions in Romans 14:6 are enthymemes. Enthymemes are condensed arguments in which either a premise and/or a conclusion is omitted for one reason or another. As such, these propositions present ideas which are at best incomplete, at least until the reader “fills in the blanks.” But how would the reader know that Paul’s two propositions are enthymemes? One reason is because Paul’s premises, if allowed to stand by themselves, would introduce teachings which irremediably militate against the whole counsel of Scripture. For instance, the idea that a believer can eat anything (including blood and strangled animals) whilst claiming that he does so to honor God is a hopelessly false idea. Nor did Paul mean for the reader to walk away with such an idea in light of other foreboding Bible verses. Likewise, the idea that a believer can treat all days the same (including the Sabbath) whilst claiming that in doing so he is honoring God is a hopelessly false idea. Nor did Paul mean for the reader to walk away with such an idea in light of other foreboding Bible verses. But alas, all communication is unavoidably rife with enthymemes therefore such tedious delineation of words and ideas is usually needed to ensure one is not misapprehending the message. Hence the following syllogisms are included to establish what Paul had in mind when penning these propositions against the backdrop of the whole counsel of God:
Premise 1 (provided): All believers who eat all things are those who eat all things unto the Lord (Romans 14:6)
Premise 2 (missing in the immediate context): The Lord prohibits believers from eating restricted foods (Acts 15:28)
Conclusion (missing): All believers who eat all things to the Lord are those who exclude restricted foods-from-the-term-‘all-things.’
Premise 1 (provided): All believers who regard-all-days-alike are those who regard-all days-alike-unto-the-Lord (Romans 14:6)
Premise 2 (missing in the immediate context): The Lord prohibits believers from desecrating the Sabbath (Isaiah 56:1-8)
Conclusion (missing): All believers who regard-all days-alike-unto-the-Lord are those who exclude-the-Sabbath-from-the term-’all-days.’
The Christ Plus Zero Movement 