United Church of God: Colossians 2:16-17 on Sabbaths
Short answer: Colossians 2:16-17 says, "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," and the United Church of God (UCG) reads this as a command not to judge those who keep God's festivals and Sabbaths, arguing the days remain valid for Christians. Many other Christians read the same verses as Paul relativizing those observances because the substance belongs to Christ. The debate turns on a phrase Paul does not spell out in the text: whether the days were a shadow that has now passed or a shadow that still points forward. Like Romans 14:5, the passage is largely about judgment between believers over disputed days, not a one-sentence verdict that settles every calendar question.
What Colossians 2:16-17 actually says
Colossians 2:16 opens the sentence with a strong negated imperative: "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." The word translated judge carries the sense of passing a verdict on someone, condemning their practice as unacceptable. Paul is not writing a general essay on calendars; he is protecting a congregation from people who were using outward observances as a measuring stick for other believers. The verse is a restriction on judging, not a command about which days to keep.
That distinction matters because the same verse is often quoted by both sides. Someone might say Paul abolishes the Sabbath here, but the text does not say do not observe. Someone else might say Paul commands Sabbath-keeping here, but the text does not say observe. What it does say is that no one should sit in judgment over another believer on these questions. The primary force is relational and pastoral: stop letting outsiders or fellow believers dictate your standing before God on the basis of food, drink, and sacred times.
The list Paul gives is important. Eating, drinking, a feast day, a new moon, a Sabbath day—these are the exact categories of Israel's ceremonial calendar and of ordinary daily life. Some of the Colossian pressure may have come from pagan ascetic ideas, some from Jewish tradition. Paul does not pause to identify the source, which suggests the principle is broader than one party. Whenever religious practice becomes a basis for condemning a fellow Christian, the warning of verse 16 applies. That does not mean practice is unimportant; it means practice cannot function as the gate that decides who belongs.
Verse 17 then gives the reason: these things are a shadow of the things to come, but the body is Christ's. This is the interpretive hinge of the whole passage. A shadow is real—it is cast by something solid—but it is not the substance itself. Paul's point is not that shadows are evil, but that they are derivative. They exist to point beyond themselves. The question that divides readers is whether the shadow has been fully fulfilled, so that the outward observance may cease, or whether the shadow continues to be a useful pointer for those who keep it in faith.
Why the United Church of God reads it as pro-Sabbath
The United Church of God is a Sabbatarian fellowship that teaches the seventh-day Sabbath and the annual festivals of Leviticus 23 remain obligations for Christians. Its writers commonly argue that Colossians 2:16-17 cannot be a cancellation of those days, because Paul would not command Gentiles not to let anyone judge them for doing something God had forbidden. On this reading, the false teachers were pushing ascetic regulations and human traditions, and Paul was defending the congregation's right to keep God's commanded times without being condemned by legalistic outsiders.
UCG also points to the wording that the Sabbath is grouped with feast days and new moons—all of which appear together in the Hebrew Scriptures as God-given appointments. If the annual feasts were shadows that ended at the cross, the argument goes, why would Paul list the Sabbath alongside them as if all three belong to the same rejected category? The answer given is that Paul is not rejecting the days but rejecting judgment about them. The command is about the judge, not the calendar.
A third thread in UCG teaching is continuity. The Sabbath is presented as created at the beginning and reaffirmed at Sinai, so it is not merely a ceremonial add-on like the sacrificial system. The festivals are likewise described as lasting statutes. From that framework, Colossians 2:16-17 becomes a shield for Sabbatarian practice rather than a repeal of it. Whether or not one accepts the conclusion, the argument is internally consistent and rests on a real grammatical observation: the verse is aimed at judges.
What UCG does not claim is that Sabbath-keeping earns salvation. Its literature typically frames the Sabbath as a gift and a sign of covenant relationship, not as a mechanism of justification. That is a crucial clarification, because the sharpest New Testament warnings about days are aimed at those who trust observance for standing before God. A Sabbatarian who keeps the day out of love and gratitude is in a very different posture from someone using the day to condemn others—which is precisely what Colossians 2:16 forbids.
The other reading: the shadow has reached its substance
Many interpreters read Colossians 2:17 as a fulfillment statement: the shadow pointed forward, and the substance has arrived in Christ, so the observance is no longer required. On this view, Paul is not defending the days but setting them aside, and the command not to judge works in both directions—do not condemn those who keep days, and do not condemn those who do not. The emphasis falls on the final clause: the body belongs to Christ, and he is the reality to which every shadow pointed.
This reading takes seriously the word therefore at the start of verse 16. Paul has just described Christ as the one in whom the whole fullness of deity dwells bodily and in whom believers are made complete. If completeness is in Christ, then the religious calendar cannot be the thing that completes a person. The days were preparatory; the preparation has met its purpose. To make them mandatory again would be like insisting on a map after arriving at the destination.
Romans 14:5-6 is often brought in as a parallel: "One man esteems one day as more important. Another esteems every day alike. Let each man be fully assured in his own mind." Paul does not resolve the calendar dispute there; he protects conscience and forbids contempt. That is telling. If Paul believed the Sabbath remained universally binding, he had a perfect opportunity to say so in Romans 14. Instead he treats the day question as a matter of personal conviction, which many take as evidence that the ceremonial calendar is no longer a boundary marker for the church.
Honesty requires acknowledging that neither reading is a slam dunk from these two verses alone. The Greek of Colossians 2:17 does not explicitly say the shadow has ceased; it says the reality belongs to Christ. Whether that implies cessation or continued significance is an inference. Faithful Christians who love the same Lord and trust the same cross read this passage differently, and Paul's own instruction in verse 16 warns against the contempt that so often accompanies the disagreement.
Galatians 4 and the danger of returning to days
Galatians 4:9-11 adds a sharper note. Paul asks, "But now that you have come to know God, or rather to be known by God, why do you turn back again to the weak and miserable elemental principles, to which you desire to be in bondage all over again?" The context is Gentile converts being pressured to adopt Jewish observances as a condition of full standing. Paul uses the language of bondage and slavery, which is strong. He is not neutral about the situation he addresses in Galatia.
Some interpreters conclude from this that any observance of days is a return to slavery. Others note that Paul himself worshipped on the Sabbath and in synagogues, so the issue cannot be the mere existence of a day. The issue is motive and necessity: were the Galatians adopting days in order to be justified, to complete what Christ had begun? Paul's alarm is about a gospel problem, not a calendar problem. Days observed as devotion are one thing; days observed as a supplement to the cross are another.
This distinction helps when evaluating Sabbatarian groups. A person can keep the seventh day without believing it earns anything. Galatians 4 is not aimed at that person; it is aimed at the person who thinks Christ plus a calendar equals acceptance. Conversely, a person can abandon every special day and still be enslaved to self-made religion—Paul warns about that too, using the phrase self-made religion in Colossians 2:23. Legalism and license can both become chains, and the gospel cuts both.
So Galatians does not settle the question by itself, but it sets boundaries. Whatever position one takes on days, no day may be treated as necessary in addition to Christ for justification. And no believer may be despised for their calendar convictions. Paul's pastoral aim is a community where conscience is respected and Christ is central, and both Sabbatarian and non-Sabbatarian readers can affirm that aim even while disagreeing about its application.
What early Christian practice looked like
The New Testament gives only scattered glimpses of early Christian meeting patterns, and they are easily overread. Acts 20:7 says, "On the first day of the week, when the disciples were gathered together to break bread, Paul talked with them, intending to depart on the next day, and continued his speech until midnight." This shows a gathering on the first day, but it does not explain the theology behind it. It may reflect a resurrection-day gathering, or it may simply be the evening after the Sabbath, which in Jewish reckoning began Saturday night.
1 Corinthians 16:2 says, "On the first day of every week, let each one of you save, as he may prosper, that no collections are made when I come." Paul instructs the Corinthians to set aside money weekly. Again, this is a practical instruction about a collection, not a theological treatise on the Lord's Day. Still, the pattern suggests regular weekly assembly, and the fact that Paul names the first day is significant for later Christian practice even if it does not resolve the Sabbath question.
Hebrews 10:24-25 gives the pastoral priority: "Let's consider how to provoke one another to love and good works," and then the familiar call not to neglect gathering. Whatever day a congregation meets, the New Testament assumes believers assemble, encourage, and stir one another up. The command is not about a date but about a habit. A church that meets on Saturday and a church that meets on Sunday can both obey or disobey this verse depending on whether they actually provoke one another to love.
This matters for evaluating the United Church of God. UCG observes Saturday and the festivals, and questions about its practice often turn on whether that is faithfulness or regression. But the New Testament evidence is thinner than either side sometimes admits. Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2 show first-day activity without condemning seventh-day activity. Hebrews 10:24-25 shows the priority of assembly without specifying a day. The honest conclusion is that the New Testament does not give a clean proof text that settles the calendar debate.
How to weigh the United Church of God fairly
Fair evaluation begins with accuracy about what the group teaches. The United Church of God is a restorationist Sabbatarian fellowship that traces its lineage through the Worldwide Church of God and Herbert W. Armstrong. It holds historic Christian doctrines such as the Trinity, salvation by grace through faith in Christ's atoning death, and the authority of Scripture, while maintaining seventh-day Sabbath and festival observance as commanded. It is not a cult in the sense of denying Christ, though its distinctive calendar teaching places it outside mainstream Protestant practice.
Points of genuine agreement are substantial: the deity of Christ, his bodily resurrection, the inspiration of Scripture, the reality of sin, and the need for repentance and faith. On these central matters, a United Church of God member and a Baptist or Presbyterian can confess the same gospel. That shared ground should shape how the disagreement is discussed. Colossians 2:16 forbids judgment over food and days, and that forbidding applies to critics of UCG as much as to anyone else.
Points of difference are also real and should not be minimized. The question is whether the annual festivals of Leviticus 23 remain binding on Gentiles who were never under the Sinai covenant, and whether the seventh-day Sabbath is a creation ordinance for all people or a covenant sign for Israel. UCG answers yes and yes; most Christian traditions answer differently. Neither answer is settled by slogans, and both require careful work in the texts, including the weight given to the Old Testament's ongoing role for the church.
The pastoral bottom line is that a person should examine the arguments, hold convictions with humility, and refuse to use either Sabbath-keeping or Sabbath-abandonment as a basis for despising a fellow believer. If UCG is right, non-observers are missing a gift. If UCG is wrong, observers are carrying an unnecessary burden. Either way, the cross is the ground of acceptance, not the calendar, and Colossians 2:16-17 keeps both sides from playing judge.
Pastoral counsel for those deciding
If you are considering the United Church of God or you are a UCG member reconsidering your position, start with the person of Christ, not the calendar. Ask whether the teaching you are weighing makes him more central or more peripheral. A doctrine that adds Christ to something is dangerous; a doctrine that flows from Christ is safe. Paul's whole argument in Colossians 2 is that believers are complete in Christ, and any practice that obscures that completeness—whether by adding requirements or by removing gratitude—has gone wrong.
Second, examine the actual texts rather than the slogans. Read Colossians 2:16-17 in its paragraph, read Romans 14:5-6 in its context of weak and strong, and read Galatians 4:9-11 in the flow of Paul's argument about justification. Notice what each passage says and what it does not say. A great deal of the disagreement online is driven by quoting one verse as if it settled everything. The Bible rarely works that way, and Paul's letters especially require following an argument from start to finish.
Third, seek a congregation where you can obey Hebrews 10:24-25. The question of which day is less important than whether you are actually gathered, taught, and stirred toward love and good works. If a United Church of God congregation is where you can grow in Christ and serve others, that is a serious consideration. If a Sunday congregation is where that happens, that is also serious. The text commands the stirring, and both calendars can host it or fail it.
Finally, hold your conclusion with charity. If you become convinced the Sabbath remains, do not look down on those who rest in Christ without it. If you become convinced it has passed, do not treat Sabbatarians as if they were enemies of the gospel. Paul's command is plain: let no one judge you. That cuts against the judging, not against the days. Where Christians differ after honest study, the difference should produce patience, not contempt, and the Lord of the Sabbath is able to guide his servants.
Biblical fidelity check
Colossians 2:16 does establish a prohibition on judging fellow believers in matters of eating, drinking, festivals, new moons, and Sabbath days. It does not state that the Sabbath is abolished, nor does it state that the Sabbath remains obligatory. It does not name the false teachers or describe their specific error in this sentence. It also does not say the days are evil or worthless; it calls them a shadow, which implies derived significance. Anyone who claims this verse settles the Sabbath question in a single direction has read more into the text than the text says.
A common misreading is to treat verse 17 as if Paul wrote that the shadow has ended, full stop. He did not write that; he wrote that the body belongs to Christ. The cessation of the shadow is an inference some draw from that clause, and it may be correct, but it is an inference. The opposite misreading is also common: to treat verse 16 as a positive command to keep the days. It is a prohibition on judging, not an instruction to observe. Both misreadings turn a protective pastoral sentence into a proof text it was never designed to be.
Other passages that speak to Colossians 2:16-17
The surrounding argument matters as much as the isolated sentence. Colossians 2 is part of a letter that also speaks to unity and to freedom in disputed matters, and the following studies help put this passage in its wider biblical context: What Does 1 Corinthians 1:10 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, on the call to agree in the Lord; What Does 1 Corinthians 1:9 Mean? Context, Theology, and Application, on the faithfulness of God who called us into fellowship; 1 Corinthians 1: Called, United, and Boasting in the Lord, on the unity that should mark a congregation divided over preferences; and 1 Corinthians 10: Warnings and Freedom, on how liberty and conscience work together in the church.
Frequently asked questions
Does Colossians 2:16 mean the Sabbath is abolished?
It does not say that. The verse forbids letting anyone judge you regarding a Sabbath day, but it never states that the day itself is canceled. The argument for abolition comes from verse 17, where Paul calls these things a shadow and says the body belongs to Christ. That may imply the shadow has served its purpose, and many interpreters think it does. But the inference is not spelled out, and Sabbatarians read the same words as affirming the day's continuing value. The passage restricts judging; it does not legislate a calendar by itself.
Why does the United Church of God keep the seventh-day Sabbath?
UCG holds that the Sabbath was established at creation, codified at Sinai, and never rescinded in the New Testament. It reads Colossians 2:16 as a defense of Sabbath-keepers against critics rather than a repeal of the day, and it points to Paul's own synagogue practice in Acts. UCG also treats the annual festivals as ongoing. Most Christian traditions disagree, arguing the Sabbath was a covenant sign with Israel and that the church's first-day gathering reflects the new creation. The disagreement is longstanding and centers on how the Old Testament applies to the church.
Can a Christian keep the Sabbath and still be saved by grace?
Yes, provided the observance is not treated as the basis of acceptance before God. Salvation is by grace through faith in Christ's finished work, and no day can add to it. Paul's warning in Galatians 4 is against returning to days as a means of completion or justification. A believer who rests on the seventh day out of love and gratitude, without condemning others, is in a different position from one who trusts the day for standing. The posture of the heart, not the calendar alone, is the issue Paul addresses.
