Lorenzo Palon

Colossians 2:16–19 and the Sin of Spiritual Gatekeeping

The Cross Has Already Settled the Matter

Colossians 2:16–19 begins with a crucial word: therefore. Paul has just declared that God has made us alive with Christ, forgiven our trespasses, canceled the record of debt against us, and disarmed the rulers and authorities through the cross (Col. 2:13–15). That means the decisive work has already been done. The burden of guilt has been lifted. The case against God’s people has been answered. The hostile powers have been stripped of their claim.

So when Paul says, “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you” (Col. 2:16), he is not changing the subject. He is drawing out the practical consequence of Christ’s victory. If Christ has already won the battle, then believers must not let anyone place them back under spiritual intimidation. If the cross has already dealt with the charge against them, then no religious authority has the right to act as though the people of God are still waiting for final clearance.

This is where Paul’s warning becomes so relevant to the modern church. The danger is not only open denial of Christ. More often, the danger comes from systems that speak well of Christ but quietly act as though He is not enough.¹

Why Paul Warns Against Religious Gatekeepers

Paul says, “Let no one pass judgment on you,” and again, “Let no one disqualify you” (Col. 2:16, 18). That language is strong. It describes people who act as referees over the spiritual lives of others. They judge who is safe, mature, acceptable, and pleasing to God.

That is the essence of spiritual gatekeeping.

Religious gatekeeping happens whenever human beings insert themselves between Christ and His people. It happens when they claim the right to decide who may draw near, who is still lacking, or what extra steps are required before someone can be secure before God. In Paul’s day, the pressure seems to have involved food laws, holy days, ascetic practices, visions, and a fascination with angels. These things may have sounded serious and holy. They may even have looked impressive. But Paul sees the more profound issue. These teachings were making believers feel spiritually deficient unless they submitted to added regulations.

That is why Paul resists them so sharply. The church already has its Head. It does not need spiritual middlemen.²

When Shadows Replace the Substance

Paul says that these ritual observances are “a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ” (Col. 2:17). That is one of the outstanding theological lines in this letter. A shadow is not evil. A shadow may even be important. But a shadow is not the reality itself. It points beyond itself to something greater. The same basic point appears elsewhere in the New Testament, where the law is described as having “a shadow of the good things to come” rather than the final form itself (Heb. 10:1).

That is the point Paul is making. Food laws, sacred calendars, and ritual practices had their place in the story of God’s people. But now that Christ has come, the reality has arrived. To keep treating the shadow as though it were the substance is to misunderstand the moment. It is to live as though fulfillment had not yet come.

And that is precisely what gatekeeping religion does. It clings to secondary things and then uses them to control others. It says Christ is beneficial but not sufficient. Christ is central, but not enough by Himself. You still need this rule, that technique, this authority structure, or that special religious procedure to be truly safe.

Paul will not tolerate that. The coming of Christ has changed everything.³

How Gatekeeping Still Works in the Church

The details may change, but the pattern remains familiar. Believers are told that simple trust in Christ is not enough. They are told they need special formulas, stricter regulations, deeper revelations, or a more tightly controlled religious system to remain acceptable before God. Fear becomes the tool. Compliance becomes the goal. And what is presented as spiritual seriousness becomes, in practice, a way of keeping people dependent on religious authorities.

This group often appears in humble clothing. Paul speaks of those who delight in “self-abasement” and visionary spirituality (Col. 2:18). In other words, what looks like humility may not be humility at all. It may actually be pride disguised as piety. It may be the pride of those who believe they have special access, superior insight, or the right to manage the spiritual standing of others.⁴

That is why false religion can be so powerful. It rarely announces itself as control. It presents itself as reverence, caution, or deeper obedience. But if it leaves believers fearful, unsure, and dependent on gatekeepers rather than on Christ, then something has gone badly wrong.

When People Forbid Prayer to the Father

One concrete example of this kind of gatekeeping is the claim that believers must never pray directly to the Father but must course all prayer through Jesus in such a rigid and exclusive way that failure to do so invites the Father’s wrath.

That teaching may sound devout. It may seem to honor Christ’s role as mediator. But in truth it distorts that role and turns it into a mechanism of fear.

Jesus did not teach His disciples to avoid direct address to the Father. He taught them to pray, “Our Father” (Matt. 6:9). That fact alone should make us very cautious of any religious system that forbids what Jesus Himself commanded. The New Testament pattern is that Christ draws believers to the Father when they trust Him, not when they observe a precise formula. The pattern is that through Christ, believers are given access to the Father.

Paul says, “Through him, we both have access in one Spirit to the Father” (Eph. 2:18). Christ’s mediatorship is not a barrier. It is the reason access is possible. He does not stand between the believer and the Father as a bureaucratic checkpoint. Instead, He opens the way, secures the welcome, and brings the people of God into filial confidence before the One whom Jesus Himself calls Father.⁵

Christ the Mediator Does Not Block Access to the Father

To say that we come to the Father through Christ is gloriously true. But that truth must not be turned into an anxious verbal rule that makes believers afraid to speak to the Father directly. The point is not that the Father is reluctant and must be carefully approached with the correct procedure. The point is that the Son has made the Father known and has brought us near by grace.

The book of Hebrews says that because of Jesus’ priestly work, believers have “confidence to enter the holy places” and may “draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith” (Heb. 10:19–22). That is not the language of frightened procedural religion. That is the language of open access.⁶

When a group forbids direct prayer to the Father and threatens believers with His anger for doing so, they are not teaching deeper obedience. It is a form of spiritual gatekeeping. It takes a true doctrine and stretches it into a controlling rule that the apostles did not impose.

Fear-Based Prayer Rules Are Not the Gospel

This is precisely the sort of thing Paul warns against in Colossians 2. Religious gatekeepers create an atmosphere in which believers never feel secure in Christ alone. They always discover another rule to observe, another safeguard to follow, and another reason to fear they have approached God incorrectly.

But that is not the gospel. The gospel announces that because of Christ, God has opened the way. The believer’s confidence rests not in procedural perfection but in the sufficiency of the crucified and risen Lord. As Paul says elsewhere, “There is therefore now no condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus” (Rom. 8:1).

Not Holding Fast to the Head

Paul’s final charge is the most revealing of all. These false teachers, for all their religious seriousness, are “not holding fast to the Head” (Col. 2:19). That is the central issue. The real problem is not merely that they are strict, mystical, or controlling. The real problem is that their whole system has lost its grip on Christ.⁷

That is always the danger. The more attention a religious system gives to its own rules, its own channels, its own controls, and its own spiritual specialists, the less it is actually relying on the Head. What begins as devotion ends as displacement. Christ is still named, but trust has quietly shifted away from His sufficiency.

Growth Comes from God, Not from Religious Control

Paul closes with a better vision. Paul says that Christ nourishes the whole body and holds it together, and that through Him it “grows with a growth that is from God” (Col. 2:19). That is where real maturity comes from. Not from fear. Not from gatekeepers. It does not stem from human-imposed spiritual barriers. It comes from Christ Himself.

The church does not grow when religious control keeps it anxious. It grows by holding fast to the Head.⁸

That is why Colossians 2:16–19 still matters so deeply. It exposes the sin of spiritual gatekeeping. It warns believers not to surrender their confidence to those who would control them through rules, fears, and religious disqualification. And it calls the church back to the One who is enough.

Because of Christ, no one has the right to shut believers out or force them to wait for religious permission to draw near; in Him, they come to the Father with confidence. They should reject, not obey, any voice that tells them otherwise.

The church does not need gatekeepers to keep Christ relevant. It needs to hold fast to the Head, from whom alone comes life, freedom, and growth.

---

Notes

1. James D. G. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon, New International Greek Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1996); Douglas J. Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2008); F. F. Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1984). ↩︎
2. N. T. Wright, Colossians and Philemon: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: IVP Academic, 2015); Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. ↩︎
3. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon; Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians; Wright, Colossians and Philemon. ↩︎
4. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon; Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. ↩︎
5. R. T. France, The Gospel of Matthew (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2007); Andrew T. Lincoln, Ephesians, Word Biblical Commentary 42 (Dallas: Word Books, 1990); Peter T. O’Brien, The Letter to the Ephesians, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 1999). ↩︎
6. Harold W. Attridge, The Epistle to the Hebrews: A Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews, Hermeneia (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1989); Thomas R. Schreiner, Commentary on Hebrews, Evangelical Biblical Theology Commentary (Bellingham, WA: Lexham Press, 2021). ↩︎
7. Dunn, The Epistles to the Colossians and to Philemon; Moo, The Letters to the Colossians and to Philemon. ↩︎
8. Wright, Colossians and Philemon; Bruce, The Epistles to the Colossians, to Philemon, and to the Ephesians. ↩︎

---