Colossians 2:16-17: Are Holy Days Still for Christians?
Short answer: Colossians 2:16-17 addresses believers who were being judged over religious calendars, and it tells them to let no one judge them in eating, drinking, feast days, new moons, or Sabbath days. The reason given is that these were a shadow of the things to come, while the substance belongs to Christ. That does not forbid anyone from observing a day, and Romans 14:5-6 allows a believer to esteem one day as more important or to esteem every day alike. What it forbids is using holy days as a test of faith or a ground of condemnation. Holy days are neither commanded as a condition of salvation nor banned as a sin; they are a matter of conscience before the Lord, and no Christian should judge another over them.
What Colossians 2:16-17 actually says
The verse is a prohibition, not a permission slip for carelessness. Paul writes, "Let no one therefore judge you in eating, or in drinking, or with respect to a feast day or a new moon or a Sabbath day" (Colossians 2:16). The word therefore ties the command to everything before it. In the preceding verses Paul has described believers as having been buried with Christ in baptism and raised with him through faith, having been made alive when they were dead in trespasses. Because their standing rests on Christ's work, no outside party has authority to sit in judgment over their calendar or their table. The judgment Paul has in view is religious condemnation by people who were adding requirements to the gospel.
The list Paul gives is deliberately Jewish. Feast days, new moons, and Sabbath days are the three categories of Israel's sacred calendar, and eating and drinking likely refer to the food and drink laws connected with those observances. This is not a random assortment of pagan practices. Paul is naming the God-given institutions of the old covenant and saying that they can no longer be used as a standard by which to measure a Christian's acceptance. That is a startling claim, and Paul does not soften it. He does not say the days are evil; he says no one may judge you with respect to them. The ground of judgment has shifted entirely to Christ.
Verse 17 gives the reason: these things are a shadow of the things to come, but the body, or substance, belongs to Christ. A shadow is not a lie. A shadow is cast by something real, and it tells you that something real is near. But when the person arrives, you do not embrace the shadow and ignore the body. The feast days, the new moons, the Sabbath rest, and the sacrificial system all pointed forward. They taught Israel about holiness, about rest, about atonement, and about a coming deliverer. Once the deliverer has come, the shadow has served its purpose. To insist on the shadow as though the substance had not arrived is to reverse the direction the whole story was moving.
Notice what Paul does not do. He does not command the Colossians to stop observing anything. He does not tell them to organize a campaign against feast days. He tells them not to let anyone judge them. That distinction matters enormously for how this passage is applied. If Paul had written that no Christian may keep a feast day, the text would say so. Instead he removes the day from the category of test and places it in the category of freedom. The danger he names is judgment, not observance. A believer who keeps a day and a believer who ignores it are both addressed by the same command: stop condemning each other over it.
The shadow and the substance: why the calendar changed
To understand holy days, you have to understand the shape of the Bible's story. Leviticus 23 opens with Yahweh speaking to Moses and then lays out Israel's appointed times: the Sabbath, Passover, Unleavened Bread, Firstfruits, Weeks, Trumpets, Atonement, and Tabernacles. These were not human inventions or cultural borrowings. They were commanded, and they were a gift. They gave Israel a rhythm of rest and worship, a yearly rehearsal of God's saving acts, and a constant reminder that they belonged to a God who had rescued them. A calendar shaped by redemption is a wonderful thing. The problem was never that the days existed.
The problem was what people did with them after Christ came. The book of Hebrews explains the logic: the law, having a shadow of the good to come and not the very image of the things, could never make perfect those who drew near through the same sacrifices offered continually year by year (Hebrews 10:1). That is the argument in one sentence. The repeated sacrifices were evidence that the work was not finished. If the blood of bulls and goats had truly cleansed the conscience, the offerings would have stopped. They did not stop, because they were pointing to a priest and a sacrifice still to come. The shadow was real and God-given, but it was not the arrival.
Hebrews goes on to say that Christ offered one sacrifice for sins and sat down, because his work was complete. That is the substance to which the shadows pointed. Once the true priest has offered the true sacrifice and taken his seat, the yearly cycle is no longer the place where atonement is found. The calendar was never the savior. The calendar was a witness. When the witness has testified and the one he pointed to has arrived, you do not put the witness on the stand again and treat his testimony as the verdict. You thank God for the witness and go to the one he named. That is the transition Paul describes in Colossians 2:17.
This also explains why the New Testament can speak so sharply about returning to these observances as requirements. In Galatians 4:9-11, Paul asks the Galatians why they are turning back to weak and miserable elemental principles and describes his fear that he has labored over them in vain. His concern is not that they had a holiday. His concern is that they were treating the observance as the thing that made them right with God. Any practice, however biblical in origin, becomes a false gospel the moment it is treated as the basis of acceptance rather than the response of the accepted. That is the line the New Testament draws again and again.
Romans 14 and the conscience of the individual believer
Romans 14 handles the same practical problem from a different angle. Paul writes, "One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind" (Romans 14:5). Notice that Paul does not settle the calendar question here. He does not say the day-keeper is right or the day-ignorer is right. He says each should be fully convinced in his own mind. The emphasis falls on personal conviction before God rather than on a uniform practice enforced by the community. That is a remarkable pastoral decision, and it tells us something about how God views these disputes.
Paul continues by describing both men as acting for the Lord. The one who observes the day observes it to the Lord, and the one who eats eats to the Lord, giving thanks to God. The direction of the act matters more than the act itself in this discussion. Both are aiming at the same target: honoring Christ. This means that a Christian who quietly keeps a Sabbath rest or observes a feast day out of love for God is not sinning, and a Christian who treats every day the same out of love for God is not sinning either. The passage simply will not allow either one to claim the moral high ground over the other. Both are servants, and their master is the one who will judge them.
This is where a great deal of damage has been done in both directions. Some churches have treated anyone who observes a traditional holy day as superstitious or legalistic. Others have treated anyone who does not observe a particular calendar as disobedient or compromised. Both responses violate the plain instruction of Romans 14 and Colossians 2. Paul's rule is that the strong should not despise the weak and the weak should not judge the strong, because God has welcomed both. If God has received a brother, the rest of us have no business drawing lines he has not drawn. The question is never whether I find the practice helpful or strange; the question is whether God has accepted the person who does it.
It helps to remember why this matters so much. The gospel announces that acceptance with God is received, not achieved. Every time a Christian adds a calendar requirement to that announcement, the message quietly changes from good news to a new law. Every time a Christian mocks another believer's careful observance, the same thing happens from the opposite side, because contempt for a brother is also a way of standing over him. Romans 14 protects the gospel from both distortions. The day is not the gospel. The Lord of the day is.
Does the Sabbath command still bind Christians?
The Sabbath is the most contested item in this discussion, and honesty requires saying that faithful Christians differ. The command in Exodus 20:8-11 begins, "Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy", and grounds it in God's own rest after creation. That is not a minor ceremonial detail; it is embedded in the Ten Commandments and tied to the created order. Many Christians have therefore concluded that a weekly rhythm of rest and worship remains morally binding, even if the specific day has changed, and they point to the early church gathering on the first day of the week as evidence of a transferred observance.
Others read Colossians 2:16-17 as placing the Sabbath, along with feast days and new moons, in the category of shadow. On this reading, the Sabbath was a sign pointing to the rest that Christ gives, and Hebrews 4 speaks of a rest that remains for the people of God into which believers enter by faith. If the Sabbath is a shadow, then treating it as a binding requirement for all Christians would be a return to the very thing Paul says has been fulfilled. This view does not deny that rest is wise or that assembling for worship is commanded; it denies that one specific day is the test of obedience under the new covenant.
Both positions can be held with genuine love for Scripture, and both have been held by serious, Bible-believing Christians across history. What neither position may do is turn the disagreement into a test of salvation or fellowship. A believer who rests on Sunday, a believer who rests on Saturday, and a believer who sees every day as alike can all be fully assured in their own minds before the Lord. The New Testament simply does not authorize any of them to excommunicate the others over it. Where Scripture is clear, we must be clear; where Scripture leaves room, we must leave room, and this is a place where the New Testament itself leaves room.
Practically, this means a church should be able to say plainly what it practices without treating its practice as the gospel. It is entirely appropriate for a congregation to gather on a particular day, to teach a particular view, and to encourage a rhythm of rest. It is not appropriate to suggest that a visitor who differs is less loved by God. The instruction in Colossians 2:16 is addressed to the one being judged, but it implies an obligation on the one doing the judging. If Paul tells the Colossians not to be judged, he is telling the judges to stop. That is a rebuke worth hearing in every generation, including ours.
Christmas, Easter, and the days Christians invented
Most holy days observed by Christians today are not in Leviticus 23. Christmas, Easter, Lent, Advent, and the various saints' days developed over centuries in the history of the church, and they are not commanded in Scripture. That fact alone does not make them wrong, but it does mean they must be held with a lighter grip than the commands of God. A day invented by the church for the sake of remembrance and worship is a human tradition, and human traditions are helpful only when they serve the word of God rather than standing over it. When they are treated as binding, they become exactly what Paul warned against.
There is real freedom here. A family may set aside Advent to prepare for Christmas, and that can be a genuine act of worship. A church may gather on Christmas morning, and that can honor the Lord. A believer may also find the commercial pressure and the accumulated customs unhelpful and choose to keep the day quietly or not at all. Colossians 2:16 addresses all of it, because the principle is not limited to ancient Jewish feasts. Any calendar that becomes a ground of judgment falls under the same rebuke. The question is never whether a day is traditional; the question is whether it is being used to bind a conscience that Christ has set free.
There is also a positive case to be made for marking time. Human beings forget, and a calendar of remembrance can help us remember. Israel's feasts were annual rehearsals of God's saving acts, and Christians have often found a yearly rhythm of celebration useful in the same way. The danger is not in the remembering; the danger is in the pride that says my way of remembering is the only faithful way. A believer who celebrates Christmas with joy and a believer who does not observe it at all can both be giving thanks to God. What neither should do is look down on the other, because Romans 14 tells us that both are doing what they do for the Lord.
If you want to think carefully about how a season like Christmas should be handled, the same principles apply that apply to any observance: is it commanded, is it helpful, and is it being used to judge others? A practice that is not commanded may still be good. A practice that is good may still become an idol. The test is whether the day points you to Christ or away from him. If it points to Christ, thank God for it. If it has become a burden you lay on other people's consciences, it has ceased to serve the purpose for which it was made, and Colossians 2:16 applies directly to you.
How to hold a holy day without becoming a judge
The first step is to be fully convinced in your own mind, as Romans 14:5 puts it. That means doing the work of studying Scripture and deciding before God, not outsourcing the decision to a tradition or to a reaction against a tradition. A conviction reached by careful study is very different from a preference inherited without thought, and only the first kind can be held with a good conscience over the long haul. If you observe a day, know why. If you do not, know why. Vagueness is not freedom; it is just an unwatched gate.
The second step is to keep the day in its proper place. A holy day is a servant of worship, not a substitute for it. If you keep a feast day, let it drive you to the Lord it points to rather than becoming an end in itself. If you fast or feast, do it to the Lord. If you abstain, do it to the Lord. The moment a practice becomes the thing you trust, it has taken a place only Christ can hold. The shadow is not the substance, and even the best human tradition cannot carry the weight that belongs to the one who fulfilled every shadow.
The third step is to watch your mouth. Paul's warning cuts both ways. Do not judge the person who keeps a day, and do not despise the person who does not. It is easy to be smug in either direction, and both kinds of smugness are sin. A church with freedom in this area will be a church where a family can quietly keep a tradition without being questioned and another family can quietly skip it without being suspected. That is not indifference to truth; it is the humility that comes from knowing that we all stand before the Lord, and it is exactly what the New Testament asks of us.
Finally, keep the center where Paul keeps it. Colossians 2 ends its argument not with a calendar but with Christ, who is the head over every rule and authority and in whom the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily. The reason no one may judge you over a feast day is that you have been made complete in him. That is a far greater comfort than any observance can give. You do not keep a day in order to be accepted; you are accepted, and therefore you may keep a day or lay it down with thanksgiving. The freedom belongs to the redeemed, and the glory belongs to Christ alone.
Biblical fidelity check
Colossians 2:16-17 establishes that no one may judge a believer over feast days, new moons, Sabbaths, eating, or drinking, and it grounds that in the fact that these were a shadow whose substance is Christ. It does not establish that these observances were sinful, that they were pagan, or that anyone is forbidden to keep them. The text addresses judgment, not practice. It also does not establish that every human tradition about holidays is automatically pleasing to God; it simply removes the day from the category of a test by which a believer's standing can be measured. The passage is about the ground of acceptance, and that ground is Christ alone.
A common misreading turns this verse into a blanket ban: since the Sabbath was a shadow, any Christian who rests on a particular day is being legalistic, and any church that observes a season is adding to the gospel. That is not what Paul says. He nowhere commands the Colossians to abandon the days; he forbids anyone to judge them over the days. The opposite misreading is equally wrong: since the passage says not to judge, some conclude that all observances are equally commanded and that churches may impose whatever calendar they like on their members. Paul's whole point is that no one has that authority. Read carefully, the verse guards both the freedom to observe and the freedom not to, and it forbids the condemnation that would destroy either one.
Other passages that speak to Colossians 2:16-17
Several related studies help fill out this theme. For the broader context of Paul's argument about Christ's supremacy, see What Does Colossians 1:23 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application. For a case study in how old-covenant commands are handled today, see Are Tattoos a Sin? Leviticus 19:28 in Context. On the person and work of the Spirit who applies our freedom in Christ, see Bible Verses About The Holy Spirit: A Scripture-First Guide for Christians. And for a practical example of how a season can be observed without binding consciences, see Christmastide: the twelve days of Christmas explained: A Biblical Guide. Together these help show how the freedom of Colossians 2 is lived out in ordinary Christian practice.
Frequently asked questions
Does Colossians 2:16 mean Christians should not observe holy days?
No. The verse forbids judging others over feast days, new moons, and Sabbaths; it does not forbid observing them. The reason given is that they were a shadow whose substance is Christ. A believer may still mark a day to the Lord, and Romans 14:5-6 explicitly allows one person to esteem a day while another esteems every day alike. What is excluded is using the day as a test of another person's standing before God. The passage protects freedom in both directions.
Is the Sabbath still required for Christians today?
Faithful Christians differ on this. Some hold that the fourth commandment's weekly rhythm of rest and worship remains morally binding, while others read Colossians 2:16-17 as placing the Sabbath among the shadows fulfilled in Christ, with Hebrews 4 describing the rest that remains for God's people. Both views have been held by serious Bible-believing Christians. What the New Testament does not permit is turning the disagreement into a test of salvation or a reason to condemn a brother.
Are Christmas and Easter wrong because they are not in the Bible?
Scripture neither commands nor forbids most Christian holidays, and being extra-biblical is not the same as being wrong. The real issue is whether a day is treated as required or used to judge others, which is exactly what Colossians 2:16 forbids. A tradition that points you to Christ and serves worship can be received with thanksgiving. A tradition that binds consciences or replaces Christ has overstepped, whatever its history.
