looking for help reconciling the Sabbath with common observation?

[frederickdoc]

What does the 4th commandment actually say?
It's Exo 20:8-11 and only 4 verses.
Take a moment and read what it says, verse by verse, word for word.

It is still one of the 10 in God's law.
Break just one precept and you have broken the entire law.
James 2:10-11

Tell me what's written on your heart then you know I was never given the ten commandments with Jesus as Lord seated high priest and I have the kurds and honey so I know how to choose good and know what evil is . God is Love and the Holy Spirit helps me to keep all his commandments but they're not written in stone !
I don't know how many laws and statutes we have but it's way more than the 612 that a man can't keep anyway

 

[OMC]

The transition from the Saturday Sabbath (the Seventh Day) to the Sunday Sabbath (the Lord's Day or First Day) is not a cancellation of God's law, but as its fulfillment and renewal in Jesus Christ.
The moral principle of the Sabbath remains completely intact, while its specific day changed to honor the Resurrection.

The Ten Commandments are rooted in God’s character and are universally binding for all time. Therefore, the command to set aside one day out of seven for rest and worship remains permanent.

The specific seventh-day requirements, shadow-like rituals, and strict civil penalties were tied to the Old Covenant and the nation of Israel. These were fulfilled and set aside by Christ.

You claim that Jesus never changed the day. But He did change the day, not by rewriting the text of Exodus, but by the cosmic event of His Resurrection, which inaugurated a New Creation.

In the first creation, God worked six days and rested on the seventh. The Old Covenant Sabbath looked forward to a future rest.

In the new creation, Jesus finished His work on the cross, rested in the grave on the seventh day, and rose on the first day of the week (Matthew 28:1). Believers now start their week resting in Christ’s finished work before going out to work.

The early church immediately began meeting, breaking bread, and collecting tithes on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2).

In Revelation 1:10, the Apostle John notes he was in the Spirit on "the Lord’s Day." In the first century, this was the specific term used for Sunday—the day Jesus rose.

After His resurrection, Jesus repeatedly chose to manifest Himself to His disciples on the first day of the week (John 20:19, 26).

The Apostle Paul explicitly warns New Testament believers against letting anyone judge them regarding the rigid keeping of the Old Covenant Jewish Sabbath:

Colossians 2:16–17: "Therefore do not let anyone judge you by what you eat or drink, or with regard to a religious festival, a New Moon celebration or a Sabbath day. These are a shadow of the things that were to come; the reality, however, is found in Christ."

Galatians 4:10–11: Paul expresses fear for the Galatians because they were slipping back into observing specific "days and months and seasons and years."

So there is plenty of Biblical support for the change.

Notice what you've done here.
You've moved from saying Scripture teaches a Sabbath change to saying Scripture supports a theological framework in which a Sabbath change makes sense.
Those are not the same claim.

You say the Sabbath changed because Christ inaugurated a new creation through His resurrection.
I agree Christ inaugurated the new creation.
You say believers gathered on the first day of the week. I agree.
You say John mentions "the Lord's Day." I agree.
You say Colossians 2 and Galatians 4 free believers from Old Covenant Sabbath requirements. I largely agree.
But none of those points actually says, "The Sabbath commandment has been transferred from the seventh day to the first day."

What I see is a collection of observations followed by a conclusion.
The conclusion may be right or wrong, but it remains an inference.
Matthew 28 says Christ rose on the first day.
It does not say the Sabbath moved.
Acts 20:7 says believers gathered on the first day.
It does not say the Sabbath moved.
1 Corinthians 16:2 says collections were taken on the first day.
It does not say the Sabbath moved.
Revelation 1:10 says "the Lord's Day."
It does not define the term as a replacement Sabbath.
Colossians 2:16-17 actually weakens the argument for a Christian Sabbath law because Paul tells believers not to be judged concerning sabbath days rather than establishing a new sabbath day.

What strikes me most is that you simultaneously argue that the fourth commandment remains universally binding while also arguing that its defining feature changed.
The commandment does not merely say, "keep one day in seven."
It specifically says, "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God" (Ex. 20:10).
If the command still stands but the day changes, I would expect some New Testament text explicitly redefining it.
Instead, the passages you cite explain why Sunday became important to Christians, not why the Sabbath command itself was altered.

There is certainly biblical support for Christ's resurrection being central, for believers gathering on the first day, and for freedom from Old Covenant sabbath regulations.
What I do not see is biblical support for the specific claim that God transferred the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day.
That conclusion is drawn from the data. It is not stated by the data.

And that's really been my point all along. If you wish to say, "I believe the Sabbath changed because this is the best synthesis of Scripture and early church practice," then we can discuss that.
But saying, "Scripture teaches the Sabbath was changed to Sunday," requires a text that actually says it.
That is the one thing that has not yet been produced.

 

[Churchgoer]

How presumptuous can you get?

Naturally God would not command someone to do what He knows is impossible for them.
Do you think God would punish a 90 year old crippled man who cannot work because he does not work 6 days per week?

Wasn't my post in agreement with retirement?
Please read my post again.

 

[Journey_man]

I don’t think your reasoning is valid. The Catholic Church tried to change the Sabbath to the first day of the week, Sunday which was the pagan day of worship of the Sun god.

[Mat 12:8 KJV] – 8 For the Son of man is Lord even of the sabbath day.

That's not true, because the Sabbath was changed to Sunday 300 years before Roman Catholicism existed. The Apostles observed Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.

 

[OMC]

That's not true, because the Sabbath was changed to Sunday 300 years before Roman Catholicism existed. The Apostles observed Sunday as the Christian Sabbath.

"Scripture teaches the Sabbath was changed to Sunday," requires a text that actually says it.

 

[Journey_man]

Your not giving any scriptures to back up your presumptions.

Where in the Bible before the death of Jesus did the Sabbath get changed?

A will or covenant is set once the blood of the testator has died. No changes after the death... the apostles did not keep Sunday as the Sabbath.

The Apostles never observed Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, before Christ's death and resurrection. It never entered the minds of the Apostles to break the forth commandment, so of 'course they never did it.

You failed to take into consideration a few important facts, before you asked your paradoxical question.

1. None of the Apostles believed that the Lord Jesus would rise from the dead, on the third day (Sunday). 2. There was absolutely no reason for the Apostles to break the forth commandment and change the day of worship to Sunday before Resurrection Sunday. 3. The Apostles had no authority or reason to make any changes to anything God commanded or ordained.

There is only One who has the authority to change anything He desires and that is the Lord Jesus, He is the Almighty Jehovah God, Creator of everything that exists. He created the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship, under the old covenant, and He is the One who created the new Covenant. Gods people now live under the new Covenant, where we celebrate Resurrection day every Sunday, with His full blessing and approval.

 

[Journey_man]

Only God has this authority and God does not clearly say there was a change.

It is clearly stated which day God set with authority = Saturday 7th day.

No scripture can be given to show that God changed the day.

Acts 20:7, 1 Corth 16:2, are not evidence that God changed the day.

People gathered every day like today.

Mid week bible studies does not make that day a sabbath day.

God didn't write the Bible in a way that you can understand. This is why He appointed Shepherds to teach us simple sheep what it all means. I get the sense that you don't have a Shepherd to teach you anything and that's why you're so confused about everything.

 

[OMC]

The Apostles never observed Sunday as the Christian Sabbath, before Christ's death and resurrection. It never entered the minds of the Apostles to break the forth commandment, so of 'course they never did it.

You failed to take into consideration a few important facts, before you asked your paradoxical question.

1. None of the Apostles believed that the Lord Jesus would rise from the dead, on the third day (Sunday). 2. There was absolutely no reason for the Apostles to break the forth commandment and change the day of worship to Sunday before Resurrection Sunday. 3. The Apostles had no authority or reason to make any changes to anything God commanded or ordained.

There is only One who has the authority to change anything He desires and that is the Lord Jesus, He is the Almighty Jehovah God, Creator of everything that exists. He created the Sabbath as a day of rest and worship, under the old covenant, and He is the One who created the new Covenant. Gods people now live under the new Covenant, where we celebrate Resurrection day every Sunday, with His full blessing and approval

I agree that the apostles had no authority to change God's commands and that Christ alone possesses such authority.
My question is not whether Christ could change the Sabbath. Of course He could.
My question is where Scripture tells us that He did.
Your argument establishes Christ's authority to make such a change, but authority and action are not the same thing.
The fact that Christ could do something does not prove that He did do it.
So the issue remains: where does the New Testament teach that Christ transferred the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day?
I see passages about the resurrection, first-day gatherings, and freedom regarding sabbath observance, but I do not see a passage stating that the fourth commandment itself was modified.
That is the specific point I am asking to see demonstrated from Scripture.

 

[TMS]

Tell me what's written on your heart then you know I was never given the ten commandments with Jesus as Lord seated high priest and I have the kurds and honey so I know how to choose good and know what evil is . God is Love and the Holy Spirit helps me to keep all his commandments but they're not written in stone !
I don't know how many laws and statutes we have but it's way more than the 612 that a man can't keep anyway

Millions have been taught that the old covenant was the Ten-Commandment law. They boast of being delivered from the law and claim to walk in a glorious freedom from the Old Testament covenant of works.

let us look at three absolute proofs that the covenant which disappeared was not the Ten Commandments.

First of all, we notice that the Old Covenant had some poor promises in it. The New Covenant, we are told, “was established upon better promises.” Heb 8:6. Tell me, has anyone ever been able to point out any poor promises in the Ten Commandments? Never. On the contrary, Paul declares that they were very good. “Children, obey your parents in the Lord: for this is right. Honour thy father and mother; which is the first commandment with promise; That it may be well with thee, and thou mayest live long on the earth.” Ephesians 6:1-3.

The second thing wrong with the Old Covenant was that it was faulty. The Bible says, “For if that first covenant had been faultless, then should no place have been sought for the second.” Hebrews 8:7. Let me ask you a question: Has any man ever been able to find a fault or a flaw in the handwriting of God? The psalmist declared, “The law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul.” Psalm 19:7. Paul wrote, “Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.” Romans 7:12.

Finally, though, we read the most dramatic thing about the Old Covenant – it was to be abolished! “In that he saith, A new covenant, he hath made the first old. Now that which decayeth and waxeth old is ready to vanish away.” Hebrews 8:13. Now we can ask a serious question that should settle every doubt on this matter. Did the great moral law of Ten Commandments vanish away?

Anyone who has read the New Testament must answer, Absolutely not. Paul affirms the exact opposite about the law. He asked, “Do we then make void the law through faith? God forbid: yea, we establish the law.” Romans 3:31.

Does the Bible contradict itself? Can something vanish away and be established at the same time?

The 10 do not contain poor promises, are not faulty, and did not vanish away. my next post will look at what the old covenant is..

 

[Journey_man]

I agree.
We do not kill animals for redemption of sin, circumcision is not required, temple services, Jewish feast days, etc.
But the 10 commandments still stand for God's people.

Would you like a list of the principles of each of the 10 commandments known, commanded and kept in the NT?
Every single one of them. Including the 7th day sabbath of the 4th commandment.

No man has ever kept a single one of the 10 commandments. But that's OK because Gods elect are not saved by keeping any of the commandments. Gods elect are saved by His gift of grace, through His gift of faith. He then gives us the gift of repentance, then He gives us the gift of His Holy Spirit and every other good gift.

The requirement for one day in seven is rooted in creation (Genesis 2:2–3, before the Mosaic Covenant) and is therefore a moral and perpetual duty. However, the specific seventh-day designation (Saturday) and the hyper-strict civil penalties of the Mosaic code belonged to the old covenant administration.

Christ rose on the "first day of the week" (Matthew 28:1, Revelation 1:10), inaugurating the "new creation". The early church gathered for worship and collections on the first day of the week (Acts 20:7, 1 Corinthians 16:2). Sunday is the "Christian Sabbath" or the Lord's Day, celebrating accomplished redemption rather than mere creation rest.

Colossians 2:16–17 explicitly states, "Let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ."

While Colossians and Romans 14:5 free believers from Jewish calendar legalism and strict seventh-day observance, Jesus declared Himself "Lord of the Sabbath" (Mark 2:27–28), meaning the institution was redeemed and elevated to point to Him, rather than being completely erased.

 

[TMS]

"These are the words which thou shalt speak unto the children of Israel.” Exodus 19:3-6.
Notice how God asked Moses to present His offer to the people. Here are all the elements of a true covenant. Conditions and promises are laid down for both sides. If the children of Israel accept God’s proposal, a covenant will be established. How did they respond to the divine offer? read Exodus 19:7, 8.

Just as soon as that answer went back to God, the basis for the Old Covenant was set up. But before it could go into formal operation there had to be a sealing or ratifying of the pact. This ritualistic service involved the sprinkling of the blood of an ox on the people and is described in Exodus 24:4-8: "..... And Moses took half of the blood, and put it in basins; and half of the blood he sprinkled on the altar. And he took the book of the covenant, and read in the audience of the people: and they said, All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient. And Moses took the blood, and sprinkled it on the people, and said, Behold the blood of the covenant, which the Lord hath made with you concerning all these words.”

Again we are reminded that this covenant was not the law itself but was made “concerning all these words.” The crucial weakness in the whole arrangement revolved around the way Israel promised. There was no suggestion that they could not fully conform to every requirement of God. Neither was there any application for divine assistance. “We can do it,” they insisted. Here is a perfect example of leaning on the flesh and trusting human strength. The words are filled with self-confidence. “All that the Lord hath said will we do, and be obedient.”

Were they able to keep that promise?

The book of Hebrews begins to unfold. There God is reported as “finding fault with them.” Hebrews 8:8. He said, “Because they continued not in my covenant … I regarded them not.” Verse 9. The blame is placed squarely upon the human side of the mutual pact. Thus, we can see exactly why Paul wrote as he did about this Old Covenant in Hebrews 8. It did gender to bondage, it proved faulty, had poor promises, and vanished away – all because the people failed to obey their part of the agreement. Putting all these things together we can see why a new covenant was desperately needed, which would have better promises.

How were the New Covenant promises better? Because God made them, and they guaranteed successful obedience through His strength alone. “I will put my laws into their mind … I will be to them a God … I will be merciful to their unrighteousness and their sins and their iniquities will I remember no more.” Hebrews 8:10-12.

Old covenant = i will do... flesh.
New covenant = God will do. Faith

 

[JohnDB]

Your wrong about that because the opposite is true, many laws were actually abolished under the new covenant.

Love is the fulfillment of the Law.

"Anyone who breaks the Laws and teaches others to do so will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. "

Laws are not abolished....only fulfilled or not.
And the New Testament has a New set of Commandments given by Jesus.
No straightforward list....just commandments given as He was teaching and talking. Do you know them? Do you understand them?
Do you know the order of importance for them?

 

[TMS]

How was the New Covenant ratified? In the same manner that the Old was confirmed – by the shedding of blood. But instead of an ox having to shed its blood, the sinless Son of God would provide the blood of sprinkling: “Now the God of peace, that brought again from the dead our Lord Jesus, that great shepherd of the sheep, through the blood of the everlasting covenant, Make you perfect in every good work to do his will, working in you that which is well-pleasing in his sight, through Jesus Christ.” Hebrews 13:20, 21.

What a contrast to the weak promises of the flesh made by Israel at Sinai. Instead of the people’s “we will do,” God’s New Covenant promise is to “make you perfect in every good work … working in you.” It is no longer human effort. It is not so much you working, but Him “working in you.” And how is this power made available? “Through the blood of the everlasting covenant.” Because of what Jesus did on the cross.

Obedience is made possible by the writing of God’s law on the heart. Through spiritual regeneration the mind and heart are transformed. Christ actually enters into the life of the believer and imparts His own strength for obedience. By partaking of the divine nature, the weakest human being begins to live the very life of Jesus Christ, manifesting His victory, and crucifying the flesh.

Paul describes that transaction this way: “For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.” Romans 8:3, 4.

The word for righteousness is “dikaima,” meaning “just requirement” of the law. In other words, because of Jesus’ sinless life in the flesh, the requirement of the law can be fulfilled in us. This is the New Covenant promise for every believing, trusting child of God. And it is absolutely the only way that anyone can meet the requirements of the law: “Christ in you, the hope of glory.” Colossians 1:27. but only by faith and we will permit Him to do so.

Does this mean that works are no longer important? Since the law cannot justify, should it be abolished by the believer? The doctrine of the covenants establishes beyond any doubt that the law is just as important under the New as under the Old. Instead of being graven on stone, it is written in the heart. Instead of being fulfilled by us, it is fulfilled by Jesus in us. Instead of keeping the law in order to be saved, we keep it because we are saved. The same works of obedience are there, but they are there for a different reason and from a different motive.

 

[Journey_man]

Notice what you've done here.
You've moved from saying Scripture teaches a Sabbath change to saying Scripture supports a theological framework in which a Sabbath change makes sense.
Those are not the same claim.

You say the Sabbath changed because Christ inaugurated a new creation through His resurrection.
I agree Christ inaugurated the new creation.
You say believers gathered on the first day of the week. I agree.
You say John mentions "the Lord's Day." I agree.
You say Colossians 2 and Galatians 4 free believers from Old Covenant Sabbath requirements. I largely agree.
But none of those points actually says, "The Sabbath commandment has been transferred from the seventh day to the first day."

What I see is a collection of observations followed by a conclusion.
The conclusion may be right or wrong, but it remains an inference.
Matthew 28 says Christ rose on the first day.
It does not say the Sabbath moved.
Acts 20:7 says believers gathered on the first day.
It does not say the Sabbath moved.
1 Corinthians 16:2 says collections were taken on the first day.
It does not say the Sabbath moved.
Revelation 1:10 says "the Lord's Day."
It does not define the term as a replacement Sabbath.
Colossians 2:16-17 actually weakens the argument for a Christian Sabbath law because Paul tells believers not to be judged concerning sabbath days rather than establishing a new sabbath day.

What strikes me most is that you simultaneously argue that the fourth commandment remains universally binding while also arguing that its defining feature changed.
The commandment does not merely say, "keep one day in seven."
It specifically says, "the seventh day is the sabbath of the LORD thy God" (Ex. 20:10).
If the command still stands but the day changes, I would expect some New Testament text explicitly redefining it.
Instead, the passages you cite explain why Sunday became important to Christians, not why the Sabbath command itself was altered.

There is certainly biblical support for Christ's resurrection being central, for believers gathering on the first day, and for freedom from Old Covenant sabbath regulations.
What I do not see is biblical support for the specific claim that God transferred the Sabbath from the seventh day to the first day.
That conclusion is drawn from the data. It is not stated by the data.

And that's really been my point all along. If you wish to say, "I believe the Sabbath changed because this is the best synthesis of Scripture and early church practice," then we can discuss that.
But saying, "Scripture teaches the Sabbath was changed to Sunday," requires a text that actually says it.
That is the one thing that has not yet been produced.

You won't understand what the Bible teaches, until you follow the rules for studying the Bible. Hermeneutics is the overarching academic and theological framework—the "rules and principles"—used to understand sacred text.
Xegesis is the careful, diligent drawing out of a text’s true meaning rather than reading a meaning into it (eisegesis), deeply tied to historical-grammatical analysis.
Scripture interprets scripture (The Analogy of Faith). The belief that clear passages of the Bible should help explain more obscure or difficult ones, and that the Bible as a cohesive whole never contradicts itself.
Examining the original grammar, word meanings (semantics), literary genre, and historical context of a passage to discover what the human and divine authors intended. Recognizing that the entire Bible tells the unified story of God's redemptive work, pointing forward or backward to Jesus Christ as its central focus.

We can't claim something is unbiblical, just because it was not written in simple terms. There are many things that the Bible doesn't spell out in straight forward terms.

 

[OMC]

You won't understand what the Bible teaches, until you follow the rules for studying the Bible. Hermeneutics is the overarching academic and theological framework—the "rules and principles"—used to understand sacred text.
Xegesis is the careful, diligent drawing out of a text’s true meaning rather than reading a meaning into it (eisegesis), deeply tied to historical-grammatical analysis.
Scripture interprets scripture (The Analogy of Faith). The belief that clear passages of the Bible should help explain more obscure or difficult ones, and that the Bible as a cohesive whole never contradicts itself.
Examining the original grammar, word meanings (semantics), literary genre, and historical context of a passage to discover what the human and divine authors intended. Recognizing that the entire Bible tells the unified story of God's redemptive work, pointing forward or backward to Jesus Christ as its central focus.

We can't claim something is unbiblical, just because it was not written in simple terms. There are many things that the Bible doesn't spell out in straight forward terms.

I don't disagree that hermeneutics, exegesis, historical context, grammar, semantics, and the analogy of faith are important.
In fact, I use those very tools every time I study Scripture.
The question is not whether doctrines may be derived through careful study rather than from a single proof text.
The question is whether the conclusion drawn from that process is actually warranted by the biblical data.

You say that I will not understand the Bible until I follow the rules of hermeneutics, but notice that we are both claiming to use those same rules and yet arriving at different conclusions.
Therefore, simply invoking hermeneutics does not settle the matter.
The issue remains the interpretation itself.

I fully agree that there are truths Scripture does not state in a single straightforward sentence.
The Trinity is a good example. Scripture never says, "God is one essence in three persons."
Yet the conclusion arises from explicit biblical data that must be reconciled together.
My question regarding Sunday and the Sabbath is whether the evidence rises to that same level.

What I see is explicit teaching that Christ rose on the first day, believers gathered on the first day, and Christians are not to be judged concerning sabbath days.
What I do not see is an explicit statement that the Sabbath commandment itself was transferred from the seventh day to the first day.
That conclusion may be inferred from the data, but it is still the conclusion that must be demonstrated.

So I am not claiming something is unbiblical merely because it is not stated in simple terms.
I am asking whether the conclusion is a necessary conclusion from the text or a theological synthesis that sincere believers may disagree about.
Those are two different things, and I think it is important that we distinguish between them.

 

[Churchgoer]

As I said before, 7th is important.
But you can start day 1 from any day.

There is no record showing manna day 1 is Sunday as cycle of creation Sunday.

When God says in creation week, make the 7th day holy, just that day. Not starting cycle week.

 

[OMC]

As I said before, 7th is important.
But you can start day 1 from any day.

There is no record showing manna day 1 is Sunday as cycle of creation Sunday.

When God says in creation week, make the 7th day holy, just that day. Not starting cycle week.

If Sabbath observance remained a binding New Covenant requirement, I would expect the apostles to plainly instruct the churches concerning it, especially during controversies over circumcision and other aspects of the Mosaic Law.
Instead, the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 does not impose Sabbath-keeping upon the Gentiles, and the epistles never command believers to remember the Sabbath in the way the Old Covenant did.
So my question is not merely, "Where is the command to keep Sunday?" but first, "Where is the New Testament command requiring Christians to keep a Sabbath at all?"
Before debating which day should be observed, it seems necessary to establish from Scripture that such an obligation remains in force for New Covenant believers.

 

[TMS]

Love is the fulfillment of the Law.

"Anyone who breaks the Laws and teaches others to do so will be least in the Kingdom of Heaven. "

Laws are not abolished....only fulfilled or not.
And the New Testament has a New set of Commandments given by Jesus.
No straightforward list....just commandments given as He was teaching and talking. Do you know them? Do you understand them?
Do you know the order of importance for them?

sounds confusing.

Simple truth....
1. God is Love
2. Love God with all your heart. and love your neighbour as yourself.
3. the 10 commandments. God said.
4. The testimony and witness of the Prophets. God in them.
5. The word of God, the bible and its witness. God inspired.
6. The life and teachings of Jesus. God in the flesh.

All of these are ways that God speaks to us. They don't contradict each other and reinforce each other.
If a person claims to be a prophet and contradicts the bible you know they are not true.

If people are claiming to be a follower of Jesus but knowingly and willfully transgress Gods laws ..... The Spirit of Jesus is not living in them. Jesus followed all the laws.

 

[Churchgoer]

If Sabbath observance remained a binding New Covenant requirement, I would expect the apostles to plainly instruct the churches concerning it, especially during controversies over circumcision and other aspects of the Mosaic Law.
Instead, the Jerusalem Council in Acts 15 does not impose Sabbath-keeping upon the Gentiles, and the epistles never command believers to remember the Sabbath in the way the Old Covenant did.
So my question is not merely, "Where is the command to keep Sunday?" but first, "Where is the New Testament command requiring Christians to keep a Sabbath at all?"
Before debating which day should be observed, it seems necessary to establish from Scripture that such an obligation remains in force for New Covenant believers.

Nt teaches do not forsake gathering, also prepare offering for gathering time.
Hebrew 10:25
1 Corinthians 16: 1 2

Note here Paul hinted they gather 1st day every week. I don't think there is any command to shift from Saturday to Sunday gathering. But somehow in Paul s time, it just happened.

 

[OMC]

Nt teaches do not forsake gathering, also prepare offering for gathering time.
Hebrew 10:25
1 Corinthians 16: 1 2

Note here Paul hinted they gather 1st day every week. I don't think there is any command to shift from Saturday to Sunday gathering. But somehow in Paul s time, it just happened.

I can see evidence that the church gathered on Sunday.
I do not necessarily see evidence that Sunday was imposed as a Sabbath in the same sense that the seventh day was under the Mosaic covenant.
In fact, your conclusion seems closer to what the New Testament actually presents.
The apostles do not appear to command a shift from Saturday to Sunday.
Rather, by Paul's day, many believers were already gathering on the first day because of Christ's resurrection and the life of the church. That is different from saying God formally transferred the Sabbath command from the seventh day to the first day.
So perhaps the more precise question is not, "Did Christians gather on Sunday?"
The evidence suggests they often did.
The question is, "Did the New Testament establish a binding Christian Sabbath?"
That is the point I still find difficult to demonstrate from the text itself.