Why is there no command in the New Testament for Christians to keep the sabbath day holy? When the New Testament lists sins, sabbath breaking is notably absent. In Mark 7:21-22, there are 13 sins are listed, and Jesus did not mention breaking the sabbath. In Romans 1:29-32, there are 20 sins listed and not one of them is sabbath breaking. In 1 Corinthians 6:9-10, there are 10 sins listed and no mention of breaking the sabbath. In Galatians 5:19-21, there are 15 sins listed with no mention of sabbath breaking. In 2 Timothy 3:1-4, there are 18 sins listed, but not once is sabbath breaking mentioned.
So is it okay to take the Lord's name in vain or commit bestiality?
Of coarse not but they are not mentioned in the NT.
However the Sabbath is. It is mentioned a lot.
Romans 14:5 - One man regards one day above another; another regards every day alike. Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind.
No mention of the Sabbath there. As a matter of fact Romans 14 is speaking of man's opinions and surmising's Not God's Word.
How do we know? Because the context is set in verses 1 and 2. The context of the passage is in regard to not disputing with those who are weak in the faith over opinions in respect to what we can or can not do. Not what has been established in the Word of God.
Verse one mentions not disputing over opinions, not what has been established by God in Scripture. In continuing this premise he mentions a debate in regard to some thinking we should only eat vegetables. There is no mandate from God that we should only eat vegies. It is a opinion or a surmising one gets from scripture not a mandate, a Law from God. So when we get to verses 5 and 6 we should know that the day is not the Sabbath because the context is over opinions not the Sabbath, God's Law.
One might say, well how do you explain verse 14 where Paul says, "there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean".
Quite simply, that is a bad translation. The word translated there unclean is koinos which means common or profane not unclean. They are not synonyms. Acts 10 show us this. There in relation to Peter's vision both common and unclean are mentioned in respect to what Peter saw when he seen
all manner of four footed beasts, wild beasts and creeping things. He did not see any clean animals there though they were because he seen all manner of four footed beasts.
You see they were no longer clean animals due to them touching the unclean ones.
Hence why Peter only seen common and unclean animals when he proclaimed he would not eat any thing common OR unclean..
Take not also when God censures Peter He says, what God has cleansed call not common.
God never mentions the unclean.
Rom 14:1 Him that is weak in his faith, receive ye,––not for disputing opinions:––
Rom 14:2 One, indeed, hath faith to eat all things, whereas, he that is weak, eateth herbs:
Rom 14:5 [For], one, indeed esteemeth one day beyond another, whereas, another, esteemeth every day:––let, each one, in his own mind be fully persuaded.
Rom 14:6 He that regardeth the day, unto the Lord, regardeth it,––and, he that eateth, unto the Lord, doth eat, for he giveth thanks unto God; and, he that eateth not, unto the Lord, doth not eat and give God thanks.
Rom 14:14 I know, and am persuaded by the Lord Jesus, that there is nothing unclean of itself: but to him that esteemeth any thing to be unclean, to him it is unclean.
Acts 10:12 Wherein were all manner of fourfooted beasts of the earth, and wild beasts, and creeping things, and fowls of the air.
Acts 10:13 And there came a voice to him, Rise, Peter; kill, and eat.
Acts 10:14 But Peter said, Not so, Lord; for I have never eaten any thing that is common or unclean.
Acts 10:15 And the voice spake unto him again the second time, What God hath cleansed, that call not thou common.
Thanks for the reply. We will post more in relation to the rest of your post as time permits.