http://digitalcommons.andrews.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1163&context=auss&sei-redir=1&referer=https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&q=Roman%27s+14%3A5+and+the+sabbath&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C36&as_sdtp=#search="Romans 14:5 sabbath"
When say scholarly, I'm referring to research by biblical scholars on the meaning of Scripture. These are then published in peer-reviewed journals. Commentaries are helpful to the layman but are not focused so narrowly as scholars.
In the reference above you will find the survey of scholarship giving four different views of the "days" referred to in 14;5ff.
P 26 starts the discussion on the fourth inference (Paul is referring to the Sabbath).
"Both groups agree, therefore, that it is ruled by Paul that the seventh-day Sabbath is no longer of permanent moral obligation.
It is to be noted, however, that the attempt to connect the fourth-commandment Sabbath with the "days" mentioned in this passage is not convincing for everybody."
My point is that the inference that Paul is destroying the sabbath is a live inference, and one scholars have taken seriously. Not every scholar agrees it is the best explanation, but many do, and all seem to think it is a legitimate interpretation that needs to be explained away. Modern scholars of the last 70 years anyways.
