Exegetical and Hermeneutical Commentary of Romans 14:6
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.
6. regardeth ] Lit. thinketh, mindeth. Same word as e. g. Rom 8:5.
unto the Lord ] i.e. the Lord Christ, “the Lord of the dead and living” (Rom 14:9). The word thus used is a good implicit proof of St Paul’s view of the supreme dignity of Messiah; especially when we find him just below writing, in the same connexion, “he giveth God thanks.” It would indeed be unsafe to say that in that clause “ God ” means specially or exclusively “ Christ.” But the two words are so used that no such gulf as that between Creator and Creature can possibly divide them. “ Unto the Lord: ” i.e., as one who not only is responsible to Him, but owns that he is. This seems to be required by the use made of the fact of thanksgiving just below.
and he that regardeth not not regard it ] Documentary evidence appears to exclude this part of the verse. But as an explanatory gloss it is just and valuable.
He that eateth ] Probably read And before this clause.
for he giveth God thanks ] And so evidences his sense of subjection and responsibility.
and giveth God thanks ] Here again, the inward sense of responsibility to “the Lord” is evidenced by the outward act of thanksgiving to “God.” The thanks given is, of course, for the food (vegetable, or “clean” meat), which he does eat.
Fuente: The Cambridge Bible for Schools and Colleges
He that regardeth – Greek, Thinketh of; or pays attention to; that is, he that observes it as a festival, or as holy time.
The day – Any of the days under discussion; the days that the Jews kept as religious occasions.
Regardeth unto the Lord – Regards it as holy, or as set apart to the service of God. He believes that he is required by God to keep it, that is, that the laws of Moses in regard to such days are binding on him.
He that regardeth not the day – Or who does not observe such distinctions of days as are demanded in the laws of Moses.
To the Lord … – That is, he does not believe that God requires such an observance.
He that eateth – The Gentile Christian, who freely eats all kinds of meat; Rom 14:2.
Eateth to the Lord – Because he believes that God does not forbid it; and because he desires, in doing it, to glorify God; 1Co 10:31. To eat to the Lord, in this case, is to do it believing that such is his will. In all other cases, it is to do it feeling that we receive our food from him; rendering thanks for his goodness, and desirous of being strengthened that we may do his commands.
He giveth God thanks – This is an incidental proof that it is our duty to give God thanks at our meals for our food. It shows that it was the practice of the early Christians, and has the commendation of the apostle. It was, also, uniformly done by the Jews, and by the Lord Jesus; Mat 14:19; Mat 26:26; Mar 6:41; Mar 14:22; Luk 9:16; Luk 24:30.
To the Lord he eateth not – He abstains from eating because he believes that God requires him to do it, and with a desire to obey and honor him.
And giveth God thanks – That is, the Jew thanked God for the Law, and for the favor he had bestowed on him in giving him more light than he had the Gentiles. For this privilege they valued themselves highly, and this feeling, no doubt, the converted Jews would continue to retain; deeming themselves as specially favored in having a special acquaintance with the Law of God.
Fuente: Albert Barnes’ Notes on the Bible
Verse 6. He that regardeth the day] A beautiful apology for mistaken sincerity and injudicious reformation. Do not condemn the man for what is indifferent in itself: if he keep these festivals, his purpose is to honour God by the religious observance of them. On the other hand, he who finds that he cannot observe them in honour of God, not believing that God has enjoined them, he does not observe them at all. In like manner, he that eateth any creature of God, which is wholesome and proper food, gives thanks to God as the author of all good. And he who cannot eat of all indiscriminately, but is regulated by the precepts in the Mosaic law relative to clean and unclean meats, also gives God thanks. Both are sincere; both upright; both act according to their light; God accepts both; and they should bear with each other.
Fuente: Adam Clarke’s Commentary and Critical Notes on the Bible
In this verse you have a reason why Christians should not censure one another, upon an account of different opinions and practices, because they have all the same end and scope, which is the pleasing and glorifying of God. It is with regard to him that they eat, or eat not; that they observe those festival days, or observe them not; and so far they are on both sides to be commended; for that indeed should be our end, in all our actions, to glorify and please the Lord: see 1Co 10:31; Col 3:17.
He giveth God thanks; i.e. he is thankful unto God for the bountiful and free use of his creatures. Some would ground that laudable practice of giving thanks at meals upon this text, but it hath a clearer warrant from Mat 14:19; 15:36; 26:26; Act 27:35.
He eateth not, and giveth God thanks; because he hath meat enough besides, which he is not forbidden, 1Co 10:28.
Fuente: English Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole
6. He that regardeth the day,regardeth it to the Lordthe Lord CHRIST,as before.
and he . . . not, to the Lordhe doth noteach doing what he believes to be the Lord’s will.
He that earth, eateth to theLord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, to the Lordhe eateth not, and giveth God thanksThe one gave thanks to Godfor the flesh which the other scrupled to use; the other did the samefor the herbs to which, for conscience’ sake, he restricted himself.From this passage about the observance of days, ALFORDunhappily infers that such language could not have been used if thesabbath law had been in force under the Gospel in any form.Certainly it could not, if the sabbath were merely one of the Jewishfestival days; but it will not do to take this for granted merelybecause it was observed under the Mosaic economy. Andcertainly, if the sabbath was more ancient than Judaism; if, evenunder Judaism, it was enshrined among the eternal sanctities of theDecalogue, uttered, as no other parts of Judaism were, amidst theterrors of Sinai; and if the Lawgiver Himself said of it when onearth, “The Son of man is LORDEVEN OF THE SABBATH DAY” (see Mr2:28) it will be hard to show that the apostle must have meantit to be ranked by his readers among those vanished Jewish festivaldays, which only “weakness” could imagine to be still inforcea weakness which those who had more light ought, out of love,merely to bear with.
Fuente: Jamieson, Fausset and Brown’s Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it to the Lord,…. The apostle strengthens the above advice with this reason, because what is done both by one and the other, is done unto the Lord. The weak brother that esteems one day above another, and regards the passover, pentecost, and feast of tabernacles, a new moon, or a seventh day sabbath, does it in obedience to the commands of the Lord, which he thinks are still binding, not knowing that they are disannulled by Christ; and the worship performed by him on any of those days is done in the name and strength of the Lord, with a view to his glory, and as believing it was pleasing in his sight; and whether he is right or wrong, it is to the Lord he does it, and to his own master he stands or falls. The following clause is omitted in the Alexandrian copy and some others, and in the Vulgate Latin and Ethiopic versions, but is in most Greek copies, and retained in the Syriac and Arabic versions.
And he that regardeth not the day, the Lord he doth not regard it; believing it is the will of the Lord, that all distinction of days should cease; and that the law of commandments contained in ordinances, respecting such Jewish days, is abolished by the Lord Jesus Christ; and that it is to the honour the Lord not to observe them: for to regard the days of the feast of tabernacles, is tacitly to say, that the Word has not tabernacled among us; and to observe he days of the passover, is virtually to deny that our passover is sacrificed for us; and to keep the day of Pentecost, is all one as to affirm, that the firstfruits of the Spirit have not been given; and to regard a new moon, is in effect to say, that the church has not received evangelical light from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and to keep a seventh day sabbath, is a strong insinuation, as if Christ the true sabbath, in whom we have our spiritual and eternal rest, is not come; however, it is to the Lord that the stronger brother and more confirmed believer disregards any of those days; and it is to his own master he stands or falls, nor is he to be judged of man’s judgment: and the same is the case of the eater, or non-eater of meats forbidden by the law:
he that eateth, eateth to the Lord, for he giveth God thanks. The man that is strong in faith, and is fully persuaded by the Lord Jesus that all distinction of meats, as of days, is ceased, eats any thing, and every sort of food, that comes in his way, without making any difference; and when he eats or drinks at any time, it is all to the glory of God; which is a clear case, by his giving God thanks, as becomes him, for the food he eats: he acknowledges that these are the creatures of God, and his gifts to him; he gives him thanks for the right he has given him to eat of them, and for taking away the distinction of meats, and giving him the free use of his creatures; and the more thankful he is when he considers how unworthy he is of the least of these mercies: and
he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth, or, and giveth God thanks. The man that is weak in faith, that eateth not food forbidden by the law, abstains from such food, purely on account of the Lord, in obedience to his will, and with a view to his glory, supposing such a law to be in full force; and is thankful to God for the herbs he allows him to eat, or for other food not forbidden by the law: and therefore since each party shows such a religious concern for the glory of the Lord, the apostle argues they ought to be easy one with another. The Alexandrian copy reads, “and giveth the Lord thanks”.
Fuente: John Gill’s Exposition of the Entire Bible
Regardeth (). “Thinks of,” “esteems,” “observes,” “puts his mind on” (from , mind). The Textus Receptus has also “he that regardeth not,” but it is not genuine.
Unto the Lord (). Dative case. So as to (unto God). He eats unto the Lord, he eats not unto the Lord. Paul’s principle of freedom in non-essentials is most important. The Jewish Christians still observed the Seventh day (the Sabbath). The Gentile Christians were observing the first day of the week in honour of Christ’s Resurrection on that day. Paul pleads for liberty.
Fuente: Robertson’s Word Pictures in the New Testament
He that regardeth not – doth not regard it. Omit.
Fuente: Vincent’s Word Studies in the New Testament
1 ) “He that regardeth the day,” (ho phronon te hemeron) “He who minds or regards the day”; is contentious about the day; Whatever one does any day and every day is to be done within the will and to the glory of the Lord, 1Co 10:31; Not as merely pleasing men and extra-scriptural regulations of men, 1Ti 4:3.
2) “Regardeth it unto the Lord,” (kurio phronei) “To the Lord he minds it”; He is conscientious, even though the law of holy days of the law be fulfilled, Mat 5:17-18; Luk 24:44; Col 2:14-17.
3) “And he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he cloth not regard it,” This clause is omitted in better manuscripts; 1Co 10:30-31.
4) “He that eateth, eateth to the Lord,” (kai ho esthion kurio esthiei) “And he who eats, eats to the Lord,” to the honor of the Lord, even if he is ignorant of the fact that the eating ordinance had no more jurisdiction over him, Gal 3:19; Gal 3:25.
5) “For he giveth God thanks,” (eucharistei gar to theo) Because he offers thanks to God”; even as Cornelius, the devout, unsaved, sincere Gentile, Act 10:1-2; Acts 4, 6. Thanks to God consecrates every meal, no matter who gives it.
6) “And he that eateth not, to the Lord he eateth not,” (kai ho me esthion kurio ouk esthiei) “And the one who eats not, it is to the Lord he is not eating”; and he is not worse or more sinful for neglecting or refusing to eat according to former law regulations, 1Co 8:8-9; Ec 12,13, 14.
7) “And giveth God thanks,” (kai eucharistei to theo) “And gives thanks to God”; that he is not under law, but under grace, free, with a greater latitude of Christian liberty, Gal 5:1; Gal 5:13; Gal 5:16; Gal 5:25; Col 3:17.
Fuente: Garner-Howes Baptist Commentary
6. He who regards a day, etc. Since Paul well knew that a respect for days proceeded from ignorance of Christ, it is not probable that such a corruption was altogether defended by him; and yet his words seem to imply, that he who regarded days committed no sin; for nothing but good can be accepted by God. Hence, that you may understand his purpose, it is necessary to distinguish between the notion, which any one may have entertained as to the observance of days, and the observance itself to which he felt himself bound. The notion was indeed superstitious, nor does Paul deny this; for he has already condemned it by calling it infirmity, and he will again condemn it still more plainly. Now, that he who was held fast by this superstition, dared not to violate the solemnity of a particular day; this was approved by God, because he dared not to do any thing with a doubtful conscience. What indeed could the Jew do, who had not yet made such progress, as to be delivered from scruples about days? He had the word of God, in which the keeping of days was commended; there was a necessity laid on him by the law; and its abrogation was not clearly seen by him. Nothing then remained, but that he, waiting for a fuller revelation, should keep himself within the limits of his own knowledge, and not to avail himself of the benefit of liberty, before he embraced it by faith. (419)
The same also must be thought of him who refrained from unclean meats: for if he ate in a doubtful state of mind, it would not have been to receive any benefit, from God’s hand, but to lay his own hand on forbidden things. Let him then use other things, which he thinks is allowed to him, and follow the measure of his knowledge: he will thus give thanks to God; which he could not do, except he was persuaded that he is fed by God’s kindness. He is not then to be despised, as though he offended the Lord by this his temperance and pious timidity: and there is nothing unreasonable in the matter, if we say, that the modesty of the weak is approved by God, not on the ground of merit, but through indulgence.
But as he had before required an assurance of mind, so that no one ought rashly of his own will to do this or that, we ought to consider whether he is here exhorting rather than affirming; for the text would better flow in this strain, — “Let a reason for what he does be clear to every one; as an account must be given before the celestial tribunal; for whether one eats meat or abstains, he ought in both instances to have regard to God.” And doubtless there is nothing more fitted to restrain licentiousness in judging and to correct superstitions, than to be summoned before the tribunal of God: and hence Paul wisely sets the judge before all, to whose will they are to refer whatever they do. It is no objection that the sentence is affirmative; for he immediately subjoins, that no one lives or dies for himself; where he declares, not what men do, but commands what they ought to do.
Observe also what he says, — that we then eat to the Lord, or abstain, when we give thanks. Hence, eating is impure, and abstinence is impure, without thanksgiving. It is only the name of God, when invoked, that sanctifies us and all we have.
(419) It has been suggested as a question by some, whether the Christian Sabbath is included here? The very subject in hand proves that it is not. The subject discussed is the observance of Jewish days, as in Gal 4:10, and Col 2:16, and not what belonged to Christians in common. — Ed.
Fuente: Calvin’s Complete Commentary
(6) Regardeth.Much as we might say, he who minds the day, or directs his thoughts and feelings to it.
He that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it.This clause is omitted by the best MSS. and editors.
For he giveth God thanks.By the saying of grace at meat, the meal, whatever it may be, is consecrated to God, and he who partakes of it shows that he does so in no irreverent spirit.
Fuente: Ellicott’s Commentary for English Readers (Old and New Testaments)
6. Regardeth it unto the Lord Paul justifies the maintainer of the special day as acceptable to God. But it is remarkable that the following clause, He that regardeth not the day to the Lord he doth not regard it, is decided by scholars to be spurious. It was originally inserted by copyists, who inferred it to be needed from the fact that in the last half of this verse both the positive and negative side of the eating of meats are commended as being done unto the Lord. It is therefore very remarkable that while in regard to the eating of meats both sides are thus commended in regard to days it is only one side, namely, the esteem of the special day alone that is so sanctioned. This appears to be a decisive indication that it was the apostle’s own opinion. This passage, therefore, is a strong proof-text of the validity of the Christian sabbath. (See Dr. Fairbairn’s work on “Revelation of Law,” whence much of this argument is suggested.)
In our Saviour’s life every day was a sacred day, redolent with the holiness of the sabbath; and yet one day was by him acknowledged to possess that special rank. Similarly, in Paul’s own life every day was holy, yet one in seven only was sabbath. What Jesus did, what Paul did in his human measure, that these pietists professed and aspired to do, and perhaps succeeded; namely, drown the special sanctity of one day in the general sanctity of all, and so doctrinally abolish the sabbath. It is one thing to raise every day to a sabbatic holiness, and another to sink the sabbath to an ordinary secularity. Yet this mysticism of these pietists marred the practical soundness of secular Christian life; and, though bearing its palliations, was a weakness in the faith, productive of ungrounded censoriousness, and endangering perseverance in Christian life.
Fuente: Whedon’s Commentary on the Old and New Testaments
‘He who regards the day, regards it unto the Lord, and he who eats, eats unto the Lord, for he gives God thanks, and he who does not eat, does not eat unto the Lord, and gives God thanks.’
What matters is not whether men observe a certain day, or whether they eat a certain food. What matters is that they do whatever they do ‘to the LORD’. What matters is that they look on themselves as His servants, and obey Him in accordance with what they believe. That it is Jesus Who is in mind in the mention of ‘the LORD’ is specifically indicated in Rom 14:9. But even if it had not been made clear there it would have had to be assumed on the basis of what has gone before in Romans. Thus he recognises that Christian Jews who observe the Sabbath now observe it ‘to the LORD, Jesus Christ’.
It should be noted that what is Paul’s main concern is not whether Christians observe one day above another, or otherwise, or whether they abstain from certain foods, or otherwise, but whether they give thanks to God for all His provision. Each is responsible to God.
Sabbatarians who insist that all should be Sabbatarians, must necessarily exclude the Sabbath from Paul’s argument here, but there can be no grounds for doing so. Had he meant to exclude the well known Sabbath he would have made it quite plain. He was no fool. Who better than Paul knew that both the Christian Jews and the Christian Gentiles in Rome would assume that he was talking about the Sabbath, unless he said otherwise? And besides, one of the reasons why there would have been much concern about such observance among Christians was that while Jews, including Jewish slaves, had, by order of the state, the right to observe the Sabbath according to the custom of their fathers, Gentile Christians did not. No Gentile Christian slave could demand of his master the right to observe the Sabbath, while Christian Jews could by order of the Emperor. Many a Gentile Christian slave, urged on by Christian Jews, must have agonised over the question of the Sabbath, while aware all the time that his circumstances prevented its observance. Christian writers would have been inexcusable in not dealing with the question. And in fact Paul is doing so here. He is giving assurance that such need not be concerned.
That this was the generally held position comes out in that none of the New Testament letter writers ever urge observance of the Sabbath, something inconceivable if the observance of the Sabbath had been seen as essential, if only because the question would have been such a burning issue for Gentile Christian slaves, who were a sizeable minority in the church. Nor did they anywhere give any instruction to such Gentile Christian slaves on how to deal with the question. The only explanation for that must be that it was not seen as an issue, and that things were simply dealt with on the basis that Paul has described.
But the emphasis here is on not despising those who do feel, for conscience’ sake, that they should observe, among other days, the Sabbath. Such people, however, had no thought that Sabbath observance was necessary for salvation, for where such cases did arise Paul had no hesitation in condemning such teaching (Col 2:16).
Fuente: Commentary Series on the Bible by Peter Pett
Rom 14:6 . The right point of view, according to which each must have his own full persuasion, expressed not imperatively, but indicatively, as the Christian axiom in these matters, which conditions and regulates that .
. . .] he who directs his carefulness to the day , exercises this carefulness in his interest for the Lord , namely, in order thereby to respond to his relation of belonging to the Lord. . with the article denotes textually the day concerned , that which comes into consideration conformably to the , not the day as it happens (Hofmann). By most understand God , others (as Estius, Rckert, Kllner, Fritzsche, Philippi) Christ . The former appears to be correct, on account of . . ; but the latter is correct, on account of Rom 14:9 . The absence of the article is not at variance with this. See Winer, de sensu vocum et ., Erl. 1828; Gramm . p. 118 [E. T. p. 154]; Fritzsche, ad Marc . p. 573.
] using his Christian freedom in regard to the use of flesh in the interest of the Lord, which definite ethical direction of his he attests by his therein. This refers to the prayer at table , and, as is also the case with the subsequent . . ., not to that offered after the meal (Hofmann), but to that before it; comp. Mat 15:36 ; Mat 26:26 ; Act 27:35 ; 1Co 10:30 ; 1Co 11:24 ; 1Ti 4:4 . The thanksgiving to God consecrating the partaking of food presupposes the conviction that one does the in the capacity of belonging to Christ , and conformably to this specific relation; for anything that is opposed to Christ the Christian cannot thank the Father of Christ .
. . . .] The opposite of the preceding point (the observance of days) Paul has not added (see critical notes), because he has not at the beginning of Rom 14:6 planned his language antithetically; and it is only on the mention of the second more important point that the conception of the opposite occurs to him, and he takes it up also. To append the antithesis also to the first clause of the verse, was indeed not necessary (Philippi); but neither would it have been confusing (Hofmann), especially as the selecting of days and its opposite, as well as the eating and not-eating, were for those respectively concerned equally matters of conscience .
] for the Lord he refrains from the eating (of flesh), persuaded that this abstinence tends to serve the interest of Christ.
. ] That which was previously conceived as the reason ( ) is here conceived as the consequence ( ); and so he utters his thanksgiving table-prayer to God , namely, for the other, vegetable food, which forms the meal to be enjoyed by him. He is enabled to do so by the conviction that his has its holy ethical reference to the Lord .
Fuente: Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer’s New Testament Commentary
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.
Ver. 6. For he giveth God thanks ] A custom used by the very heathens to their gods, as is to be read in Homer and Virgil, but grown clean out of use among the Catholics in France and Italy, (Sir Ed. Sands, Spec. Europae.) But if they that give thanks at a meal do eat to God, to whom do they eat that give none?
Fuente: John Trapp’s Complete Commentary (Old and New Testaments)
6. ] The words in brackets were probably omitted from the similar ending of both clauses having misled some early copyists; but perhaps it may have been intentionally done, after the observation of the Lord’s Day came to be regarded as binding.
, taking account of , ‘regarding.’
, adduced as a practice of both parties, shews the universality among the early Christians of thanking God at meals : see 1Ti 4:3-4 . The of the was over his ‘dinner of herbs.’
is CHRIST.
Fuente: Henry Alford’s Greek Testament
Rom 14:6 . The indifference of the questions at issue, from the religious point of view, is shown by the fact that both parties, by the line of action they choose, have the same end in view viz. , the interest of the Lord. cf. Col 3:2 . The setting of the mind upon the day implies of course some distinction between it and others. The clause is omitted by most editors, but its absence from most MSS. might still be due to homoteleuton . : thanksgiving to God consecrates every meal, whether it be the ascetic one of him who abstains from wine and flesh ( ), or the more generous one of him who uses both ( ): cf. Act 27:35 , 1Co 10:30 , 1Ti 4:3-5 . The thanksgiving shows that in either case the Christian is acting (1Co 10:31 ), and therefore that the Lord’s interest is safe.
Fuente: The Expositors Greek Testament by Robertson
regardeth = observeth. See Rom 8:5.
unto = to.
Lord. App-98.
and . . . it. The texts omit.
giveth . . . thanks. See Act 27:35.
Fuente: Companion Bible Notes, Appendices and Graphics
6.] The words in brackets were probably omitted from the similar ending of both clauses having misled some early copyists; but perhaps it may have been intentionally done, after the observation of the Lords Day came to be regarded as binding.
, taking account of, regarding.
, adduced as a practice of both parties, shews the universality among the early Christians of thanking God at meals: see 1Ti 4:3-4. The of the was over his dinner of herbs.
is CHRIST.
Fuente: The Greek Testament
Rom 14:6. – , for he gives thanks-and gives thanks) Thanksgiving sanctifies all actions, however outwardly different, which do not weaken it, 1Co 10:30; Col 2:7; Col 3:17; 1Ti 4:4. The, For, however, has greater force than and, as thanksgiving is more connected with eating, than with abstinence from eating; and in him, who eats, there are both the fruits and the criterion, and in some respects the ground of faith, even of that faith, of which we have an account at Rom 14:22, and of an assured conscience; with respect to him who does not eat, that faith, of which we read at Rom 14:22, is no doubt defective as to its fruits, criterion, and the ground on which it rests, but yet the man retains all the three as regards a conscience void of offence [not violated].- , and gives thanks) for herbs, Rom 14:2.
Fuente: Gnomon of the New Testament
Rom 14:6
Rom 14:6
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks;-He that observes the day spends it in the worship of God. This is pleasing to God.
and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.-Another fails to observe the day, or fails to eat meat not required by God; yet in failing to observe it he serves and honors God, gives thanks, and God accepts him, no matter how he acts on questions indifferent.
Fuente: Old and New Testaments Restoration Commentary
regardeth: or, observeth, Gal 4:10
regardeth it: Exo 12:14, Exo 12:42, Exo 16:25, Isa 58:5, Zec 7:5, Zec 7:6
for: Mat 14:19, Mat 15:36, Joh 6:28, 1Co 10:30, 1Co 10:31, 1Ti 4:3-5
Reciprocal: Deu 8:10 – thou hast Zec 14:21 – every Mar 6:41 – blessed Mar 8:6 – gave thanks Mar 14:23 – when Luk 9:16 – he blessed Luk 22:17 – gave Joh 6:11 – when Act 27:35 – and gave Col 2:16 – in meat Col 3:17 – whatsoever Col 3:23 – as Heb 13:9 – not with
Fuente: The Treasury of Scripture Knowledge
4:6
Rom 14:6. Regardeth is from PHRONEO which Thayer defines, “to direct one’s mind to a thing,” and he explains it at this place to mean, “to regard a day, observe it as sacred.” Robinson’s definition of the word is, “to regard, to keep.” Both the lexicon definitions and the language of Paul show he is writing of men who prefer to “keep” some certain day in a religious way since he regards such a day as sacred. But that is his individual privilege, even as it is the privilege of another not to keep any day as sacred. The same privilege applies to eating or not eating certain foods.
Fuente: Combined Bible Commentary
Rom 14:6. He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord. However weak his faith, he who directs his carefulness to the day, exercises this carefulness in his interest for the Lord, namely, in order thereby to respond to his relation of belonging to the Lord (Meyer). So far as the scruples lead to conduct with this Christian tone, they appeal to the kind tolerance of those who are conscious of greater freedom.
The clause: and he that regardeth not the day, to the Lord he doth not regard it, is omitted by the best authorities, and rejected by most modern editors. It was probably inserted to complete the antithetical form of the passage, though some who retain it are disposed to think it was omitted because it seemed to be against the observance of the Lords day and Christian holidays. As regards the latter, the Apostles principle is against compulsory observance, but the Lords day has other claims than those of Jewish or Christian festivals. The presence of the Fourth Commandment in the Decalogue, the recognition (and explanation) of the obligation to keep the Sabbath by our Lord, as well as the relation of the law to the Christian life, suggest for the observance of the Lords day a higher sanction than is afforded by considerations of humanity and religious expediency or by ecclesiastical enactment. The application to the Jewish Sabbath may be admitted, but the observance of Sunday does not comprise anything in common with that Sabbatic observance which sunders life into two parts, one sacred, the other profane. It is this legal distinction which Paul excludes in our Rom 14:5 and Colossians 2 (Godet).
And he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth thanks unto God, etc. The Apostle now reverts to the first point of difference, and applies to both parties the Christian maxim just laid down. All Christians were in the habit of thanking God at meals (and have been ever since). This was the proof that the man who ate without scruple ate as a Christian man, unto the Lord; while on the other hand he who scrupulously abstained also regarded himself as abstaining from the same Christian motive, and hence gave thanks unto God over the meal of herbs to which he confined himself.
Fuente: A Popular Commentary on the New Testament
He that regardeth the day, regardeth it unto the Lord: and he that eateth, eateth unto the Lord, for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth not, unto the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks. [The conduct of each was equally commendable, as the object of each was the same; that is, to serve God. The one who rested and the one who labored each sought to please God in his act. One gave thanks for meat and all, and the other gave thanks for all, less meat. “This so remarkable saying of the apostle furnishes us,” says Godet, “with the true means of deciding all those questions of casuistry which so often arise in Christian life, and cause the believer so much embarrassment. May I allow myself this or that pleasure? Yes, if I can enjoy it to the Lord, and while giving him thanks for it; no, if I can not receive it as a gift from his hand, and bless him for it. This mode of solution respects at once the rights of the Lord and those of individual liberty.” The passage indicates that grace before meals was the universal practice of Christians in Paul’s day. It probably rested on the habit of Jesus– Luk 9:16; Luk 22:17-19; Luk 24:30-35]
Fuente: McGarvey and Pendleton Commentaries (New Testament)
6. He that regardeth the day regardeth it to the Lord.
Fuente: William Godbey’s Commentary on the New Testament
Verse 6
The meaning is, since each one, in regard to these outward observances, goes forward in what he deems his duty, under the influence of an honest desire to please and obey God, he ought not to be condemned.
Fuente: Abbott’s Illustrated New Testament
14:6 {8} He that {e} regardeth the day, regardeth [it] unto the Lord; and he that regardeth not the day, to the {f} Lord he doth not regard [it]. He that {g} eateth, eateth to the Lord, {9} for he giveth God thanks; and he that eateth {h} not, to the Lord he eateth not, and giveth God thanks.
(8) A reason taken from the nature of indifferent things, which a man may do with good conscience, and omit: for seeing that the difference of days and meats was appointed by God, how could those who as yet did not understand the abrogation of the law, and yet otherwise acknowledge Christ as their Saviour, with good conscience neglect that which they knew was commanded by God? And on the other hand, those who knew the benefit of Christ in this behalf, did with good conscience neither observe days nor meats: therefore, says the apostle in verse ten, “Let not the strong condemn the weak for these things, seeing that the weak brethren are brethren nonetheless.” Rom 14:10 Now if any man would apply this doctrine to our times and ages, let him know that the apostle speaks of indifferent things, and that those who thought them not to be indifferent, had a basis in the law, and were deceived by simple ignorance, and not from malice (for to such the apostle does not yield, no not for a moment) nor superstition, but by a religious fear of God.
(e) Precisely observes.
(f) God will judge whether he does well or not: and therefore you should rather strive about this, how every one of you will be considered by God, than to think upon other men’s doings.
(g) He that makes no difference between meats.
(9) So the apostle shows that he speaks of the faithful, both strong and weak: but what if we have to deal with the unfaithful? Then we must take heed of two things, as also is declared in the epistle to the Corinthians. The first is that we do not consider their superstition as something indifferent, as they did who sat down to eat meat in idol’s temples: the second is that then also when the matter is indifferent (as to buy a thing offered to idols, in the butcher’s store, and to eat it at home or at a private meal) we do not wound the conscience of our weak brother.
(h) He that does not touch meats which he considers to be unclean by the law.
Fuente: Geneva Bible Notes
The most important thing is to seek to please the Lord in all that we do. Christians will come to differing conclusions about what this means in practice, but their submission to Jesus Christ’s lordship is primary. Paul meant that one person does not eat meat and another does eat meat, but both give God thanks for what they do eat (Rom 14:2; cf. 1Ti 4:4-5).