Bible Studies · Topical Studies

Did Paul Teach Against Torah?

Works of the Law, Under the Law, the Curse, Circumcision—and the Apostle Everyone Thinks They Know

A Guided Topical Bible Study

Primary passages Acts 15; Acts 16:1–5; Acts 21:17–26; Acts 24:10–21; Acts 25:7–8; Romans 2–8; Romans 9:30–10:13; Romans 13:8–10; Romans 14; 1 Corinthians 7:17–24; 1 Corinthians 9:19–23; 2 Corinthians 3; Galatians 2–5; Ephesians 2:11–22; Colossians 2:8–23; 1 Timothy 1:8; 2 Peter 3:14–18

Before We Begin

There may be no biblical writer more frequently recruited into arguments against the Torah than Paul.

You have probably heard some version of these statements:

“Paul said we are not under the law.”

“Paul said Christ is the end of the law.”

“Paul said the law was our tutor until Christ.”

“Paul said the law was added only until the Seed came.”

“Paul said anybody who keeps the law is under a curse.”

“Paul said circumcision makes Christ useless.”

“Paul said the law of commandments was abolished.”

“Paul said the ordinances were nailed to the cross.”

“Paul called the law a ministry of death.”

That sounds pretty decisive.

Until you keep reading Paul.

Because Paul also says:

The law is holy.

The commandment is holy, righteous, and good.

The law is spiritual.

Faith does not nullify the law.

The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in those who walk according to the Spirit.

Love fulfills the law.

Keeping God's commandments is what matters.

The law is good when used properly.

And then Acts gives us something even more uncomfortable.

Paul arrives in Jerusalem.

A rumor is circulating that Paul teaches Jews living among Gentiles to abandon Moses, stop circumcising their children, and stop walking according to the ancestral customs.

James and the elders devise a public demonstration.

Why?

So everyone will know that the reports are false and that Paul himself lives in observance of the law.

That is not a minor detail.

Acts 21 explicitly presents the accusation that Paul taught Jews to abandon Moses as something that needed to be disproved, not as his gospel.

So we have a problem.

Either Paul was astonishingly confused.

Or we have been reading some of his statements without enough context.

Peter gives us fair warning.

Open your Bible.

Peter Warned Us About Paul

Read:

2 Peter 3:14–18

What does Peter say about Paul's letters?

Some things in them are __________________ to understand.

What do ignorant and unstable people do to those writings?

They __________________ them.

With what result?

Their own __________________.

Then read the next verse.

What kind of people does Peter warn believers not to be carried away by?

Depending upon translation:

lawless,

unprincipled,

wicked.

The Greek adjective in verse 17 is ἄθεσμος — athesmos, carrying the idea of lawless or unprincipled behavior. Peter places that warning immediately after mentioning people who distort Paul's difficult writings. That does not prove Peter had Torah interpretation specifically in mind; the immediate chapter concerns larger eschatological issues. But it should at least make us humble about using a difficult Pauline sentence as a shortcut to lawlessness.

WRITE THIS DOWN

Paul can be __________________ to understand.

Paul can be __________________.

Therefore:

I should not build doctrine from an isolated sentence without reading its __________________.

Good.

That will be our first rule.

First Meet Paul Before Interpreting Paul

Before we ask what Paul taught about Torah, find out who Paul says he is.

Read:

Romans 11:1

How does Paul identify himself?

An __________________.

From the descendants of __________________.

From the tribe of __________________.

Does he speak as though becoming a follower of Yeshua made him cease being part of Israel?

Write what you see.

__________________________________________________

Now read:

Philippians 3:4–6

What does Paul say about his background?

Circumcised on the eighth day.

Of Israel.

Benjamin.

A Hebrew of Hebrews.

A Pharisee.

Zealous.

Paul absolutely re-evaluates his grounds for boasting in light of Messiah.

But he does not come to the conversation as a first-century Gentile who has never lived inside Jewish Scripture or practice.

He is arguing from inside Israel's story.

That matters.

Paul's Letters Were Written Into Real Problems

Another rule.

Romans is not a dictionary.

Galatians is not a systematic theology textbook.

First Corinthians is not a collection of unrelated refrigerator magnets.

Paul writes to communities facing specific disputes.

Jew and Gentile.

Circumcision.

Table fellowship.

Idolatry.

Sexual immorality.

Status.

Food.

Holy days.

Justification.

Boasting.

Persecution.

False teaching.

When Paul says:

“law,”

“works,”

“circumcision,”

“under law,”

“freedom,”

we need to ask what problem he is answering.

Modern scholarship has strongly challenged the older caricature that first-century Judaism was simply a religion in which Jews tried to earn salvation through enough good deeds. Scholars still disagree sharply over how Paul's law language should be interpreted, but Jewish-Gentile identity and covenant membership are now widely recognized as central to many Pauline disputes.

That will matter enormously.

One Greek Word Does Not Always Mean One Thing

Here is another reason Paul can be misread.

The Greek word usually translated law is:

νόμος — nomos

Write it down.

νόμος — __________________

In Paul's writings, context can determine whether nomos refers to:

the Mosaic Torah,

Scripture,

a specific legal principle,

a governing power or principle,

or another kind of law entirely.

Romans itself speaks about:

the law of God,

the law of sin,

the law of the mind,

the law of the Spirit of life.

Same Greek noun.

Different referents.

Lexical resources therefore caution that nomos has a broader semantic range than simply “the Law of Moses” in every occurrence.

SO FROM NOW ON ASK:

When Paul says law:

Which law?

In what argument?

Doing what?

Do not let an English concordance do your thinking for you.

Start With Paul's Most Positive Statements

Before examining the passages that sound negative, we are going to read what Paul says when he directly describes Torah.

Open:

Romans 7:7–14

Does Paul ask whether Torah is sin?

Yes.

What is his answer?

__________________________________________________

Now verse 12.

How does Paul describe the law?

__________________________.

How does he describe the commandment?

__________________________.

Now verse 14.

What does he call the law?

__________________________.

Spiritual.

STOP

Paul says:

Torah is not sin.

The law is holy.

The commandment is holy.

Righteous.

Good.

The law is spiritual.

Any interpretation of Paul's supposedly “anti-law” statements has to survive Paul's own description.

A responsible reading of Romans 7 must also notice that Paul makes sin, not the law itself, the active culprit: sin exploits the commandment and produces death through something Paul insists is good.

Write:

According to Paul, is Torah itself evil?

__________________________________________________

Does Faith Abolish the Law?

Now read:

Romans 3:21–31

This is one of Paul's great arguments about justification.

What does Paul exclude?

Boasting.

Can human beings put Yehovah in their debt through works?

No.

How is righteousness received?

Through faith.

Good.

Do not weaken that.

Now read verse 31.

Paul anticipates a question.

Does faith nullify the law?

The Greek verb is a form of καταργέω — katargeō:

to render inoperative,

nullify,

abolish,

make ineffective.

What is Paul's answer?

Absolutely not.

Then what does he say faith does to the law?

Depending upon translation:

establishes,

upholds,

confirms.

The Greek verb is ἵστημι — histēmi, fundamentally carrying the idea of causing something to stand or establishing it.

NOW ANSWER

Paul teaches justification by faith.

Does Paul conclude:

“Therefore we abolish Torah”?

__________________________________________________

What does he actually say?

__________________________________________________

Hold that.

Paul Uses Torah to Teach Believers How to Live

Now look at how Paul actually reasons with assemblies.

Read:

Romans 13:8–10

Which commandments does Paul cite?

Adultery.

Murder.

Stealing.

Coveting.

Where did those come from?

Torah.

What command summarizes the others?

Love your neighbor as yourself.

Where did that come from?

Leviticus 19:18.

Now ask:

When Paul says love fulfills the law, does he mean love permits:

adultery?

murder?

stealing?

coveting?

Obviously not.

Love fulfills the command by living its righteous purpose.

QUESTION

Is love replacing the commandments?

Or producing the kind of behavior the commandments were teaching?

Write your answer.

__________________________________________________

Paul Does This in Galatians Too

Read:

Galatians 5:13–15

What command does Paul quote?

__________________________________________________

Again:

Leviticus 19:18.

So the same letter famous for:

“not under law”

and

“fallen from grace”

also appeals to Torah to describe the life of love.

Interesting.

Keep reading.

One of Paul's Strangest Sentences If He Abolished Obedience

Open:

1 Corinthians 7:17–20

Paul discusses Jewish and Gentile status.

Then verse 19 says:

Circumcision is nothing.

Uncircumcision is nothing.

But what matters?

The keeping of God's commandments.

STOP

If Paul's doctrine were simply:

“God's commandments no longer matter,”

this is a very strange sentence.

Paul can distinguish:

circumcision as identity/status

from

obedience to God.

That distinction is going to become important.

The Rumor About Paul

Now we reach one of the most important passages in this entire study.

Open:

Acts 21:17–26

Paul arrives in Jerusalem.

Who meets with him?

James.

The elders.

What do they tell him about Jewish believers?

There are thousands—literally myriads—who believe.

And they are zealous for what?

The __________________.

Now verse 21.

What rumor has spread about Paul?

That he teaches Jews living among Gentiles to:

forsake __________________,

not circumcise their __________________,

and not walk according to the __________________.

Read that again.

THE ACCUSATION IS:

Paul teaches Jews to abandon Moses.

That sounds remarkably similar to what many Christians today say Paul taught.

So what do James and the elders say?

“Well, Paul, that's basically correct”?

No.

They create a public demonstration.

Four men have vows.

Paul is to join their purification.

Pay their expenses.

And why?

Read verse 24 carefully.

So everyone will know there is nothing to the reports and that Paul himself lives in observance of the law.

WRITE THIS DOWN

Rumor:

Paul teaches Jews to __________________ Moses.

Proposed proof the rumor is false:

Paul publicly participates in __________________ and demonstrates that he himself __________________ the law.

Was Paul Just Pretending?

That is the obvious response.

Maybe Paul was merely putting on a show.

But think carefully.

James proposes this action specifically to prove that the accusation against Paul is false.

If Paul actually believed:

“Moses is abolished and Jewish believers should abandon him,”

then performing a religious purification rite to convince people otherwise would not be cultural sensitivity.

It would be deception.

Does the narrative accuse Paul of lying?

No.

Paul participates.

CAREFUL

Acts and Paul's letters are different literary witnesses, and scholars debate how precisely every detail in Acts corresponds with Paul's own presentation of his mission.

So we should not use Acts to erase something Paul clearly says in a letter.

But neither should we pretend Acts 21 does not exist.

Canonical interpretation has to let the witnesses talk to each other.

Paul Defends Himself

Now read:

Acts 24:10–16

Paul is standing before Felix.

What does he say he believes?

Everything in accordance with the __________________ and written in the __________________.

Now read:

Acts 25:7–8

What does Paul say in his defense?

He has committed no offense against:

the Jewish __________________,

the __________________,

or Caesar.

Again, the text presents Paul denying that he has violated Jewish law.

ASK

Does this sound like a man whose message is:

“Yehovah's Torah was wrong and I teach people to violate it”?

__________________________________________________

Maybe Paul's actual argument is more specific.

Keep going.

So What Was Paul Fighting?

Now we reach the real work.

Open:

Galatians 2

Do not begin with:

“A person is not justified by works of the law.”

Begin earlier.

Who is involved?

Paul.

Barnabas.

Titus.

Peter/Cephas.

James.

Jewish believers.

Gentile believers.

Circumcision.

Table fellowship.

READ GALATIANS 2:1–10

What ethnicity is Titus?

Gentile/Greek.

Is Titus compelled to be circumcised?

No.

Why is circumcision suddenly such a huge issue?

Is everyone discussing whether circumcision as a biblical practice ever existed?

Obviously not.

The fight is over what circumcision means for this Gentile believer.

Does Titus need to become circumcised in order to belong fully to Messiah's covenant people?

Paul says no.

Now Read the Antioch Incident

Read:

Galatians 2:11–14

What was Peter doing before certain men arrived?

Eating with Gentiles.

What does he do afterward?

Withdraws.

Separates.

Why?

Fear of the circumcision group.

What happens to the other Jewish believers?

They join him.

Even Barnabas.

What does Paul call this?

Hypocrisy.

And what is Paul's central accusation?

They are not walking straight according to the truth of the gospel.

ASK

What has happened?

Did Peter suddenly start keeping Torah and Paul become angry because Torah is bad?

Or did Jewish-Gentile table separation communicate something about the status of Gentile believers?

The historical interpretation of this incident is heavily debated, but Jew-Gentile table fellowship and Gentile status are undeniably central to the scene.

Keep that context as Paul moves into his justification argument.

“Works of the Law”

Now read:

Galatians 2:15–21

Find the phrase commonly translated:

works of the law

The Greek is:

ἔργα νόμου — erga nomou

Write it.

ἔργα = __________________

νόμου = __________________

Now here is where responsible study needs humility.

Christians have debated this phrase for centuries.

A traditional Protestant reading often understands “works of law” broadly as human law-keeping considered as a basis for justification before God.

Many New Perspective scholars emphasize something narrower or more socially specific: Torah practices functioning as Jewish covenant/identity markers, especially in Jew-Gentile disputes.

And something fascinating entered this discussion with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

A Qumran text commonly called 4QMMT uses the Hebrew phrase:

מעשי התורה — ma'ase ha-Torah

“works/deeds of the Torah.”

There it concerns particular halakhic practices and disputed Torah observance.

That does not prove Paul uses the Greek phrase in exactly the same technical sense.

But it proves “works of Torah” was capable of functioning as a real Jewish phrase concerning concrete Torah practices, not merely as a later Christian synonym for “trying to be a good person.” Some scholars therefore connect Paul's phrase especially with covenant-boundary practices such as circumcision and related identity markers; others argue Paul's usage is broader.

IMPORTANT

Do not use 4QMMT like a magic decoder ring.

It helps establish historical vocabulary.

Context still determines Paul's meaning.

What Does Galatians 2 Actually Oppose?

Return to the chapter.

What triggered the discussion?

Gentile table fellowship.

Circumcision.

Jew/Gentile status.

Justification.

Now answer:

Is Paul saying:

“Obeying God is bad”?

Or is he saying:

“Torah works cannot function as the basis upon which sinners are justified or as the gate through which Gentiles must become Jews before belonging to Messiah”?

Test both readings against the whole chapter.

Write your current conclusion.

__________________________________________________

Acts 15 Belongs Here Too

Now open:

Acts 15:1–21

What do some men say Gentile believers must do to be saved?

Be circumcised according to Moses.

That first verse is critical.

The dispute is not merely:

“Can circumcision physically be performed?”

It is connected with salvation and covenant entry.

Now verse 5.

Some believers from the Pharisaic party say Gentiles must:

be circumcised

and

keep the law of Moses.

What do the apostles discuss?

Gentile inclusion.

Peter reminds them the Spirit was given to Gentiles through faith.

James gives four immediate abstentions.

Then mentions Moses being read in every city every Sabbath.

We studied this in the food study.

For this study, notice something simpler:

QUESTION

Is Paul's Gentile mission occurring in a vacuum?

No.

The early movement is wrestling intensely with this question:

Must Gentiles become Jews in order to belong to Israel's Messiah?

That is the world of Galatians.

Timothy and Titus: Same Paul, Different Circumcision Decision

This is one of my favorite context tests.

Read:

Galatians 2:3–5

Titus is Greek.

Is he circumcised?

No.

Paul refuses to yield.

Now read:

Acts 16:1–5

Meet Timothy.

His mother is Jewish.

His father is Greek.

What does Paul do?

Paul circumcises Timothy.

Wait.

I thought Paul was against circumcision.

Apparently the question is more complicated than:

circumcision good

versus

circumcision bad.

ASK

Why refuse circumcision for Titus?

Why perform it for Timothy?

The circumstances differ.

Titus's circumcision is being demanded inside a gospel dispute over Gentile status and compulsion.

Timothy's situation concerns his Jewish maternal identity and mission among Jewish communities.

Whatever conclusion you draw, one fact is unavoidable:

Paul does not treat the physical act of circumcision as inherently sinful.

The issue includes why, for whom, and what the act is being made to mean.

“If You Get Circumcised, Messiah Will Be No Benefit”

Now read:

Galatians 5:1–6

This sounds devastating.

Paul says if the Galatian Gentiles receive circumcision, Messiah will be of no benefit to them.

Then verse 4.

Those seeking justification through law are severed/alienated from Messiah and fallen from grace.

So ask:

WHAT KIND OF CIRCUMCISION IS PAUL CONFRONTING?

Circumcision as an infant Jewish covenant sign?

Timothy's circumcision?

Or Gentile adults receiving circumcision as a requirement tied to justification and covenant status?

Read verse 4 again.

What word appears?

justified.

That context matters.

Now compare:

1 Corinthians 7:19

Circumcision is nothing.

Uncircumcision is nothing.

What matters is keeping God's commandments.

If Paul means:

“All divine commandments have ended,”

that comparison becomes nearly incoherent.

“Under the Law”

Now for perhaps the most famous phrase.

We are not under law but under grace.

Open:

Romans 6:1–23

Do not begin at verse 14.

What question begins the chapter?

Should believers continue in sin so grace increases?

Paul's answer?

Absolutely not.

Then Paul describes death to sin.

New life.

No longer enslaved to sin.

Presenting ourselves to righteousness.

Now verse 14.

Sin will not rule over you because you are:

not under __________________

but under __________________.

Stop.

Do not interpret it yet.

Read verse 15.

Paul asks:

Should we sin because we are not under law but under grace?

His answer?

Absolutely not.

THIS SETS A BOUNDARY

Whatever “not under law” means,

it cannot mean:

“Sin is now acceptable.”

Paul explicitly forbids that conclusion.

So ask:

If Torah helps Paul identify sin elsewhere, what kind of relationship to law is Romans 6 rejecting?

Condemnation?

Sin's dominion working through law?

The old covenantal condition?

Law as the means of justification?

Something else?

Different theological traditions answer differently.

But Paul himself eliminates one answer:

not under law ≠ permission to sin.

Romans 7 Makes the Question Harder

Now read:

Romans 7:1–13

Paul uses marriage law as an analogy.

Death changes jurisdiction.

Then Paul says believers have died to the law through the body of Messiah so they may belong to the risen Messiah and bear fruit for God.

He also says believers have been released from the law so they serve in the new way of the Spirit.

That sounds strongly discontinuous.

Do not weaken it.

But then immediately Paul anticipates:

“Is the law sin?”

Absolutely not.

Then:

The law is holy.

The commandment holy, righteous, and good.

ASK

What died?

What changed?

Is Paul saying:

“Torah died because Torah was evil”?

He explicitly rejects that.

The passage instead connects release, death, sin, flesh, and a new mode of Spirit-service.

Scholarly interpretations differ over the precise nature of this “release,” but even readings emphasizing liberation from the law's old jurisdiction commonly note that Paul immediately exonerates the law itself and assigns the destructive agency to sin.

Write what distinction you see.

__________________________________________________

Romans 8: What Does the Spirit Produce?

Keep going.

Read:

Romans 8:1–8

No condemnation in Messiah.

The law of the Spirit of life sets believers free from the law of sin and death.

What could Torah not accomplish because of the weakness of what?

The flesh.

What does Yehovah do?

Sends His Son.

Now verse 4.

Why?

So that the righteous requirement of the law might be fulfilled in whom?

Those who walk according to the __________________.

Spirit.

ASK

Does the Spirit produce:

lawlessness?

Or righteousness?

Does Paul blame Torah?

Or flesh/sin?

Write what you see.

__________________________________________________

“The Curse of the Law”

Now go to:

Galatians 3:1–14

People regularly say:

“The law is a curse.”

Does Paul actually say that?

Look carefully.

He speaks about:

the curse of the law.

Now look at the Torah passage Paul quotes.

He draws on:

Deuteronomy 27:26

What does the curse fall upon in that verse?

People who do Torah?

Or people who fail to uphold/do what Torah requires?

This is one of the most debated sections in Galatians precisely because Paul's argument is not as simple as “keeping Torah is cursed.” The Deuteronomy citation itself places the curse upon failure to carry out the law, not upon obedience to it.

WRITE THIS CAREFULLY

The Torah is not called __________________.

The Torah contains covenant __________________ for transgression.

Messiah redeems from the __________________.

That difference matters.

What Did Messiah Become?

Galatians 3:13 says Messiah redeems from the curse by becoming a curse for us.

Paul cites:

Deuteronomy 21:22–23

Cursed is one hung upon a tree.

QUESTION

Did Yeshua redeem us from:

having a holy God?

righteousness?

obedience?

Or from the curse/condemnation associated with transgression?

Write your answer.

__________________________________________________

Then read verse 14.

What is Paul's destination?

The blessing of Abraham reaches whom?

The Gentiles.

Again:

Gentile inclusion is sitting inside the argument.

Do not remove it.

“The Law Was Added Because of Transgressions”

Now the difficult part.

Read:

Galatians 3:15–29

Paul contrasts the promise to Abraham with the later law.

The law comes how many years later?

430.

Verse 19 asks:

Why then the law?

It was added because of transgressions until the Seed should come.

That is serious language.

Do not explain it away.

ASK

What law entered 430 years after Abraham?

The Sinai covenant legislation.

Did every divine instruction first appear at Sinai?

Our earlier Torah study already showed biblical categories and commands before Sinai.

So Paul is speaking historically about something connected particularly to Sinai.

Now ask:

What does “until the Seed” mean?

Does it mean:

every divine instruction expires?

the Sinai covenantal administration reaches a temporal goal?

the law's custodial role changes?

the law's transgression/condemnation function changes?

Scholars disagree.

Do not pretend this is an easy verse.

Keep going.

The Paidagōgos Was Not Your Third-Grade Teacher

Read:

Galatians 3:23–25

Many older translations call Torah a:

schoolmaster,

tutor.

The Greek is:

παιδαγωγός — paidagōgos

In Greco-Roman households, the paidagōgos was typically a guardian responsible for supervising and disciplining a minor. He was not simply the child's classroom teacher in the modern sense; his authority belonged to the child's period of minority and ended when maturity arrived.

Paul says the law functioned as this kind of guardian until Messiah/faith.

Now that faith has come, we are no longer under that guardian.

ASK

Does adulthood mean:

“The father's standards are now evil”?

Or:

“The relationship to the guardian has changed because the child has reached a new status”?

That analogy does not settle every question.

But it does mean “tutor” can mislead us if we imagine a modern schoolteacher whose lessons are discarded after graduation.

Paul's cultural picture is about custodianship and maturity.

But Do Not Overcorrect

Torah-observant readers can make a mistake here too.

Paul really says:

“We are no longer under the paidagōgos.”

Do not turn that into:

“Absolutely nothing changed.”

Something changed.

The question is:

What?

Covenant administration?

Guardianship?

Condemnation?

Minority status?

Gentile relationship to Sinai?

Paul's answer must be reconstructed from the whole argument.

And remember our New Covenant study.

Hebrews also tells us something genuinely changed.

Torah continuity cannot mean pretending Messiah brought no covenantal transition.

Galatians 4: “You Who Want to Be Under Law”

Now read:

Galatians 4:1–11

What analogy continues?

Heir.

Childhood.

Guardians.

Slavery.

Maturity.

Sonship.

Now verse 4.

Yeshua is born:

of a woman,

born under the law,

to redeem those under the law.

Why?

So they may receive adoption/sonship.

Again the contrast involves covenant status and maturity.

Now read:

Galatians 4:21–31

Paul uses Sarah and Hagar allegorically.

This is a difficult passage.

Sinai is associated in Paul's allegory with slavery.

Jerusalem above with freedom.

Do not delete that because it makes us uncomfortable.

But also notice:

Paul's argument concerns people seeking covenant inheritance through the wrong means.

He is not offering a simple lexical definition:

“Everything Moses ever wrote = slavery.”

His own use of Torah elsewhere will not permit that simplification.

Spirit Versus Torah—or Spirit Versus Flesh?

Now read:

Galatians 5:13–26

Paul says:

Walk by the Spirit.

Then what will you not gratify?

The desires of the flesh.

Now verse 18:

If led by the Spirit, you are not under law.

What follows?

A list of the works of the flesh.

Sexual immorality.

Idolatry.

Sorcery.

Hatred.

Jealousy.

Murder in some textual traditions.

Drunkenness.

Things like these.

QUESTION

Where did Paul learn that idolatry, sexual immorality, sorcery, murder, and drunkenness were wrong?

The Spirit is not producing a morality alien to Torah.

Then what is the fruit of the Spirit?

Love.

Joy.

Peace.

Patience.

Kindness.

Goodness.

Faithfulness.

Gentleness.

Self-control.

Does Spirit-life look like rebellion against Yehovah?

No.

So perhaps:

Spirit versus Torah

is the wrong contrast.

Paul's repeated contrast is:

Spirit versus flesh.

What About Romans 10:4?

Now another famous verse.

Open:

Romans 9:30–10:13

Do not begin at 10:4.

What is the argument?

Righteousness.

Israel pursuing righteousness.

Faith.

Messiah.

Then Romans 10:4 is often translated:

“Christ is the end of the law…”

The Greek word is:

τέλος — telos

Telos can carry the idea of:

end,

goal,

outcome,

culmination.

Major English translations therefore render Romans 10:4 differently; some use “end,” while others use language such as “culmination” or “fulfillment.” The Greek word itself does not allow us simply to assume “abolition” without interpreting the sentence in context.

TEST TWO READINGS

READING A

Messiah terminates Torah as the path to righteousness.

What supports that reading?

__________________________________________________

READING B

Messiah is Torah's goal/culmination, bringing its righteous purpose to fulfillment for everyone who believes.

What supports that reading?

__________________________________________________

Now read the larger argument.

Paul's concern is righteousness obtained through Messiah, not a dictionary entry explaining the ongoing status of every Torah command.

Do not ask one verse to do a whole theology's work.

First Corinthians 9: Paul Gives Us Another Clue

Read:

1 Corinthians 9:19–23

Paul describes adapting culturally for mission.

To Jews, like a Jew.

To those under law, as under law.

To those outside law, as outside law.

But then Paul immediately qualifies himself.

He is not outside the law of God.

He describes himself as being:

ἔννομος Χριστοῦ — ennomos Christou

often rendered something like:

under the law of Messiah,

subject to Messiah's law,

within Messiah's law.

STOP

Whatever Paul means by not being “under law,” he does not say:

“I am now lawless before God.”

He explicitly denies being outside God's law.

That matters.

Did Paul Invent a Different Morality?

Look at Paul's ethical commands.

Read:

Ephesians 6:1–3

What Torah command does Paul give Christian children?

Honor your father and mother.

How does he describe it?

The first commandment with a promise.

Paul still uses Torah's commandment as instruction.

Now read:

1 Corinthians 9:8–10

What passage does Paul quote to make a point about supporting workers?

“You shall not muzzle an ox…”

Where does that come from?

Deuteronomy 25:4.

Paul applies Torah to an assembly situation beyond its original agricultural setting.

Interesting.

He does not treat Torah as an embarrassing dead document.

He reasons from it.

What About Ephesians 2?

Now we reach a genuinely difficult passage.

Open:

Ephesians 2:11–22

Start at verse 11.

Who is being addressed?

Gentiles.

What were they formerly?

Separated from Messiah.

Alienated from the commonwealth of __________________.

Strangers to the __________________ of promise.

Without hope.

Without God.

But now?

Brought near through Messiah's blood.

Then Paul speaks about Jew and Gentile becoming one.

What did Messiah break down?

The dividing wall.

The hostility.

Now verse 15 contains difficult language.

The Greek refers to:

the law — nomos

of commandments — entolai

in decrees/ordinances — dogmata

and uses katargeō, language of nullifying or rendering inoperative.

The Greek wording is real and strong; dogma can refer to decrees or formal requirements, including Mosaic legal requirements in some Greek usage.

Do not make it disappear.

What Exactly Is Abolished in Ephesians 2?

This passage produces several major interpretations.

READING A

Messiah rendered the Mosaic law as covenant legislation inoperative, especially as the structure distinguishing Jew from Gentile.

Under this reading, Torah no longer functions as the covenant boundary defining God's people.

READING B

Messiah abolished the Torah's divisive/condemning function or the decrees functioning as a barrier between Jew and Gentile, without abolishing Yehovah's moral instruction itself.

Under this reading, the target is the hostility-generating legal barrier, not righteousness.

TEST BOTH

What is the immediate subject?

Jew and Gentile reconciliation.

What has happened to Gentiles?

They were far away.

Now brought near.

What is Messiah creating?

One new humanity.

What is He killing?

Hostility.

CAREFUL

A Torah-continuity reading cannot honestly say:

“Ephesians 2 does not contain strong abolition language.”

It does.

A Torah-abolition reading also cannot simply say:

“Therefore God's commandments no longer matter.”

Paul himself will not allow that conclusion.

The question is more specific:

What covenantal/legal function has Messiah removed in order to create one people from Jew and Gentile?

Write your conclusion.

__________________________________________________

“The Law Was Nailed to the Cross”

Was it?

Open:

Colossians 2:8–15

Read verse 14 carefully.

What exactly is canceled?

The Greek noun is:

χειρόγραφον — cheirographon

This is the only occurrence of the word in the New Testament.

Lexically it refers to a handwritten record, bond, or certificate acknowledging indebtedness—something like a record of debt.

Paul says this record stood against us with its decrees/requirements.

What does Messiah do with it?

Cancels it.

Removes it.

Nails it to the cross.

The noun Paul uses is not nomos, the ordinary Greek word for law/Torah.

QUESTION

What gets nailed to the cross according to Paul's actual noun?

Torah itself?

Or the record of debt/indebtedness standing against us?

Write your answer.

__________________________________________________

Does That Mean Torah Is Unrelated?

No.

The debt exists because transgression creates liability.

The record is connected with legal decrees.

So do not pretend Torah is nowhere in Paul's conceptual background.

But distinguish:

the law that identifies transgression

from

the debt created by transgression.

If a judge cancels my guilty verdict, that does not mean:

“Drunk-driving laws have been nailed to the courthouse wall and nobody needs them anymore.”

Forgiveness of debt is not automatically abolition of the standard that exposed the debt.

The analogy is imperfect.

But it helps us ask the right question.

Colossians 2: Keep Reading

Now read:

Colossians 2:16–23

Paul says:

Let no one judge you regarding:

food,

drink,

festival,

new moon,

Sabbath.

Then immediately he discusses:

asceticism,

worship of angels,

visions,

human commands,

“do not handle, do not taste, do not touch,”

severity toward the body.

We examined this in the food study.

For our present question, ask:

Is Paul's enemy simply:

“People obeying Scripture”?

Or is there a wider dispute involving judgment, asceticism, philosophy, and human regulations?

Write what you see.

__________________________________________________

What About Second Corinthians 3?

We studied this in the New Covenant study, but Paul cannot be studied honestly without returning here.

Open:

2 Corinthians 3

Paul contrasts:

letters on stone,

Spirit on hearts,

old covenant,

new covenant,

ministry of death,

ministry of condemnation,

ministry of Spirit,

surpassing glory.

This is real discontinuity.

Do not erase it.

But now read:

Romans 7:12

again.

The law is holy.

The commandment holy, righteous, good.

ASK

How can Paul say both?

Perhaps because:

Torah as Yehovah's instruction

and

the old covenant ministry that exposes and condemns sin

are related but not identical categories.

Paul can honor the commandment while saying the New Covenant ministry surpasses the Sinai covenantal administration.

That is exactly why our New Covenant study mattered.

Do not make Paul choose between his own letters.

“Love Fulfills the Law”

Now return to:

Romans 13:8–10

and:

Galatians 5:14

Some people hear:

“The whole law is fulfilled in love”

and translate:

“The commandments are gone; just be loving.”

But ask:

How do we know what love looks like?

Paul himself answers by quoting commandments.

Love does not commit adultery.

Love does not murder.

Love does not steal.

Love does not covet.

Therefore love fulfills Torah.

ASK

Is summary the same thing as cancellation?

If I say:

“The whole point of household rules is love your family,”

have I just given permission to punch your sister and steal your mother's car?

Probably not.

The summary explains the purpose.

It does not reverse the behavior.

Paul and Boasting

Read:

Romans 2:17–24

Paul confronts Jewish boasting.

Possessing Torah is not enough.

Teaching others while breaking Torah dishonors Yehovah.

Notice Paul's criticism.

Does Paul say:

“The problem is that you obey Torah”?

No.

The problem is hypocrisy.

You teach:

Do not steal.

Then steal.

Do not commit adultery.

Then commit adultery.

Do not rob temples.

Then rob temples.

So Paul's attack on boasting is not automatically an attack on obedience.

It is an attack on claiming covenant status while violating the very instruction in which one boasts.

Romans 2 Creates Another Problem for the Simplistic Reading

Read:

Romans 2:12–29

Paul makes several difficult statements.

He says hearers of the law are not righteous merely because they hear.

Doers matter.

He discusses Gentiles doing things the law requires.

He discusses circumcision of the heart.

He attacks outward identity without obedience.

Interpreters disagree over whether some statements are hypothetical or describe actual Spirit-transformed obedience.

But one thing is difficult to deny:

Paul's argument is not:

“Obedience is bad.”

His problem is confidence in possession, status, flesh, and boasting without genuine righteousness.

“The Law Is Good—If Used Lawfully”

Read:

1 Timothy 1:5–11

What does the letter say about the law?

The law is __________________.

Under what condition?

If one uses it __________________.

That is almost funny.

The law is good when used lawfully.

The problem is misuse.

Then the passage lists behavior opposed to sound teaching:

murder,

sexual immorality,

slave trading,

lying,

perjury,

and other practices contrary to sound doctrine.

This is not an antinomian paragraph.

Now Build Paul's Torah Evidence Map

Take a fresh page.

Create four columns.

PAUL'S POSITIVE STATEMENTS

Examples:

Romans 3:31 — faith upholds law.

Romans 7:12 — law holy; commandment holy, righteous, good.

Romans 7:14 — law spiritual.

Romans 8:4 — righteous requirement fulfilled in Spirit-walkers.

Romans 13 — love fulfills law.

1 Corinthians 7:19 — keeping God's commandments matters.

1 Timothy 1:8 — law good if used lawfully.

Add others.

__________________________________________________

PAUL'S NEGATIVE-SOUNDING STATEMENTS

Examples:

Not justified by works of law.

Not under law.

Released from law.

Curse of law.

Law added until Seed.

No longer under paidagōgos.

Fallen from grace.

Messiah is telos of law.

Law of commandments in decrees abolished.

Old covenant ministry of death.

Write them.

__________________________________________________

CONTEXT OF EACH NEGATIVE STATEMENT

Justification?

Gentile circumcision?

Jew-Gentile table fellowship?

Condemnation?

Old covenant administration?

Priesthood?

Sin exploiting law?

Human decrees?

Covenant boundary?

Write the context beside each.

__________________________________________________

WHAT STILL REQUIRES INTERPRETATION

Be honest.

Galatians 3.

Galatians 4.

Ephesians 2.

Romans 7.

Romans 10:4.

Second Corinthians 3.

Those are difficult texts.

Do not make them easy because you want your doctrine to win.

Test the Claims We Hear

CLAIM:

“Paul taught that Torah is sinful.”

Test:

Romans 7:7–14.

Does the claim survive?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Faith abolished the law.”

Test:

Romans 3:31.

Paul asks that exact question.

What is his answer?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Not under law means sin no longer matters.”

Test:

Romans 6:14–15.

What does Paul say immediately afterward?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Paul said the Torah itself is a curse.”

Test:

Galatians 3:10–14.

What does Deuteronomy 27:26 actually curse?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Paul opposed circumcision.”

Test:

Galatians 2.

Galatians 5.

Acts 16.

1 Corinthians 7:19.

Can that statement survive without qualification?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Works of law simply means obeying God.”

Test:

Galatians 2.

Romans 3.

The historical phrase ma'ase ha-Torah.

The debate over Jew/Gentile identity.

Is the phrase that simple?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“The Torah was our schoolteacher and then Yeshua fired the teacher.”

Test the meaning of paidagōgos.

Was the ancient role equivalent to a classroom teacher?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Christ is the end of the law, so Torah ended.”

Test the range of telos.

Test Romans 9:30–10:13.

Does the word automatically mean abolition?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“The law was nailed to the cross.”

What noun does Colossians 2:14 actually use?

__________________________________________________

What is a cheirographon?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Ephesians 2 proves no commandments matter anymore.”

Test the Jew/Gentile context.

Test Romans 13.

Test 1 Corinthians 7:19.

What exactly must the interpretation explain?

__________________________________________________

CLAIM:

“Paul taught Jewish believers to abandon Moses.”

Test:

Acts 21:20–26.

Acts 24:14.

Acts 25:8.

Does Acts present that claim as Paul's teaching—or as an accusation?

__________________________________________________

But Now Test the Torah-Observant Shortcut

We need to be fair.

CLAIM:

“Paul was Torah-observant, therefore nothing changed under the New Covenant.”

No.

Our last study already demonstrated that something changed.

The Sinai covenant becomes obsolete as covenant administration.

The priesthood changes.

Sacrifice changes.

The sanctuary changes.

Yeshua becomes High Priest and Mediator.

Gentiles are incorporated through Messiah without being required to become ethnic Jews.

So do not rescue Torah from bad interpretation by pretending Hebrews does not exist.

Paul is not anti-Torah.

That does not mean:

Sinai continues in every respect exactly as though Yeshua had not come.

Messiah matters.

The New Covenant matters.

Context matters in both directions.

What Was Paul Actually Opposing?

After reading these passages, create your own list.

Was Paul opposing:

Torah itself?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Torah as a means of earning justification?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Boasting in covenant status?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Requiring Gentiles to become Jews for covenant inclusion?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Circumcision used as a requirement for justification?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Sin and flesh exploiting Torah?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

The condemning function of the old covenant?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Human regulations and asceticism?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Jew/Gentile hostility?

Evidence:

__________________________________________________

Maybe Paul's target changes from passage to passage.

That may be the most important discovery in this entire study.

☕ Coffee Break With Sasha

Okay.

Come sit down.

I have coffee.

You may need a refill before Galatians.

Here is the problem.

Christians often read Paul like this:

Paul says:

“not under law.”

Close Bible.

Case dismissed.

Except Paul was not apparently informed that his own case had been dismissed.

Because a few pages later—or earlier, depending where we are reading—he says:

The law is holy.

The commandment is righteous and good.

The law is spiritual.

Faith establishes the law.

Keeping God's commandments matters.

Love fulfills the law.

The righteous requirement of the law is fulfilled in people walking by the Spirit.

So then we do something strange.

We decide Paul must mean:

“Torah is abolished”

when he sounds negative,

but when he sounds positive we say:

“Oh, well, obviously he doesn't really mean Torah there.”

That is convenient.

It is also not Bible study.

Here's another thing.

Acts practically hands us the accusation.

“Paul, everybody says you teach Jews living among the Gentiles to forsake Moses.”

There it is.

Our exact question.

Did Paul teach people to abandon Torah?

James could have responded:

“Yep. That's his ministry.”

Instead James says:

“Let's publicly show everyone that rumor is false.”

And Paul does it.

Then Paul stands in court and says he believes everything in accordance with the Torah and Prophets.

Then says he has not offended against Jewish law.

At some point we have to stop making Paul say the opposite of what Paul keeps telling us.

But—Torah people—don't get comfortable yet.

Paul really does say hard things.

The first covenant changes.

The paidagōgos period ends.

He says believers are not under law.

He says Gentiles should not accept circumcision as a condition of justification.

He says the Sinai covenant appears in an allegory connected with slavery.

He says Messiah abolishes something called “the law of commandments in decrees” in Ephesians 2.

If our answer to every one of those verses is:

“Paul didn't really mean anything changed,”

we are doing exactly what we accuse everyone else of doing.

So what do we do?

Context.

Every.

Single.

Time.

When Paul says:

works of law

ask:

What argument?

When he says:

under law

ask:

Under what aspect of law?

When he says:

circumcision

ask:

Whose circumcision?

Jew or Gentile?

Infant covenant identity or adult conversion requirement?

Mission strategy or justification?

When he says:

curse

ask:

Is Torah the curse—or is transgression bringing covenant curse?

When he says:

nailed to the cross

ask:

What Greek noun did Paul actually say was nailed?

When he says:

end

ask:

Does telos mean termination, goal, culmination, or something else here?

This is slower.

I know.

It is terribly inconvenient.

We may need snacks.

But this is how we stop making Paul fight Moses.

And maybe that's the great irony.

The apostle most often used to tell people that God's instruction no longer matters is also the apostle Peter says people twist because he is hard to understand.

I don't think Peter wrote:

“Paul is difficult, so grab one sentence and build a denomination.”

Pretty sure that wasn't the point.

Here is where I land before we finish:

I don't believe Paul taught Torah as a ladder you climb to earn salvation.

Absolutely not.

I don't believe Paul taught Gentiles they had to become Jews before Yehovah would accept them.

Absolutely not.

I don't believe Paul thought circumcision created righteousness.

No.

I don't believe he thought the Sinai covenant continued unchanged after Yeshua.

No.

But do I believe Paul taught:

“Yehovah's commandments are now bad, obedience is legalism, and Torah is irrelevant”?

I cannot find that Paul.

I keep looking.

He keeps refusing to show up.

Now Answer the Original Question

We began with:

Did Paul Teach Against Torah?

Before you read my conclusion, answer these yourself.

1. How does Paul describe the law in Romans 7?

__________________________________________________

2. Does Paul say faith nullifies the law in Romans 3?

__________________________________________________

3. What does Paul say matters in 1 Corinthians 7:19?

__________________________________________________

4. What accusation about Paul appears in Acts 21?

__________________________________________________

5. Does Acts present that accusation as true or something to be disproved?

__________________________________________________

6. What does Paul say about Torah and the Prophets in Acts 24?

__________________________________________________

7. What does Paul deny doing in Acts 25?

__________________________________________________

8. What issue surrounds “works of the law” in Galatians 2?

__________________________________________________

9. What historical evidence shows that “works of Torah” could function as a Jewish phrase concerning concrete Torah practices?

__________________________________________________

10. Why was Titus not circumcised?

__________________________________________________

11. Why was Timothy circumcised?

__________________________________________________

12. What does this tell you about Paul's circumcision arguments?

__________________________________________________

13. Does Romans 6 allow “not under law” to mean permission to sin?

__________________________________________________

14. Is Torah itself called a curse in Galatians 3?

__________________________________________________

15. What does Deuteronomy 27:26 actually curse?

__________________________________________________

16. What was a paidagōgos?

__________________________________________________

17. What possible meanings does telos have in Romans 10:4?

__________________________________________________

18. What noun does Colossians 2:14 say was nailed to the cross?

__________________________________________________

19. What is the immediate issue in Ephesians 2?

__________________________________________________

20. Does Paul ever present himself as outside God's law?

Use 1 Corinthians 9.

__________________________________________________

Now answer:

Did Paul oppose Torah itself?

__________________________________________________

If not, what was Paul opposing?

__________________________________________________

What genuinely changed because of Messiah and the New Covenant?

__________________________________________________

What I Think the Evidence Shows

Here is where I land.

I do not believe Paul taught against Torah.

I believe Paul fought against using Torah in ways Torah was never meant to be used.

He fought against boasting.

Against self-righteousness.

Against making human obedience the purchase price of justification.

Against compelling Gentiles to become Jews in order to belong to Messiah.

Against circumcision being imposed as a condition of righteousness.

Against Jew-Gentile separation that denied the gospel's creation of one people in Messiah.

Against flesh attempting to accomplish what only the Spirit can do.

Against sin exploiting a good commandment to produce death.

Against condemnation.

Against human regulations masquerading as holiness.

And against any attempt to make the Sinai covenantal administration stand unchanged after Yeshua has become High Priest, sacrifice, and Mediator of the New Covenant.

Those are enormous claims.

But none of them require:

“Torah is evil.”

Paul says the opposite.

Paul Does Not Teach Salvation by Torah

This needs to remain crystal clear.

No human being places Yehovah in debt through obedience.

No one earns Yeshua.

No one purchases forgiveness.

No one accumulates enough commandments to become worthy of resurrection.

Justification is gift.

Grace.

Faith.

Messiah.

If Torah observance becomes your functional savior, Paul will dismantle that theology before breakfast.

And he should.

Paul Does Not Teach Lawlessness Either

But the opposite error fails too.

Paul's grace does not become:

“Yehovah no longer cares what you do.”

Romans 6 will not allow it.

Paul's Spirit does not become:

“Make up your own morality.”

Galatians 5 will not allow it.

Paul's faith does not become:

“Torah is nullified.”

Romans 3:31 will not allow it.

Paul's freedom does not become:

“Commandments do not matter.”

First Corinthians 7:19 will not allow it.

Grace and lawlessness are not synonyms in Paul's vocabulary.

Paul Was Fighting About Covenant Membership

I think this is one of the biggest keys.

Many of Paul's most heated Torah arguments happen exactly where Jewish and Gentile identity collide.

Galatians 2:

Gentile table fellowship.

Galatians 3:

Gentiles receiving Abraham's blessing.

Galatians 5:

Gentiles and circumcision.

Romans 3:

Jew and Gentile under sin and justified through faith.

Romans 4:

Abraham declared righteous before circumcision.

Ephesians 2:

Gentiles once alienated, now brought near.

That does not mean every Pauline statement about law means only “ethnic boundary marker.”

The scholarly debate is much more complicated than that.

But it does mean we commit interpretive malpractice when we remove Jew and Gentile from arguments whose entire setting involves Jew and Gentile.

Messiah Changes the Covenant Situation

This part matters.

I am not arguing that Paul tells everyone to pretend Sinai is still governing covenant life exactly as it did before Yeshua.

Our New Covenant study already prevented that mistake.

The covenant changed.

The priesthood changed.

The sacrifice changed.

The sanctuary changed.

Gentile covenant inclusion changed dramatically.

Messiah is the center.

So the question cannot simply be:

“Do we keep Moses exactly as though Yeshua never came?”

No.

The question is:

How does Yehovah's instruction function for people in Messiah under the New Covenant?

That is a harder question.

It is also a much better one.

Torah Written on the Heart Changes the Relationship

Jeremiah says Torah moves within.

Ezekiel says the Spirit moves Yehovah's people toward obedience.

Paul says the righteous requirement of Torah is fulfilled in people walking according to the Spirit.

That sounds less like:

Torah versus Spirit

and more like:

external command encountering sinful flesh

versus

Spirit-transformed people learning to walk in righteousness.

That distinction helps make sense of why Paul can speak negatively about one relationship to law and positively about the law itself.

Do Not Turn Paul Into Moses' Enemy

Paul's Bible was what we call the Old Testament.

His arguments come from Genesis.

Deuteronomy.

Psalms.

Isaiah.

Habakkuk.

Leviticus.

Hosea.

He does not spend his ministry explaining how stupid those books were.

He uses them to explain Messiah.

The gospel.

Righteousness.

Faith.

Gentile inclusion.

Resurrection.

Love.

Holiness.

He is not attempting to rescue Christians from Scripture.

He is arguing from Scripture about what Yehovah has done in Messiah.

A Safer Paul-and-Torah Checklist

Whenever somebody says:

“Paul said the law is gone,”

ask:

Which passage?

Find it.

What Greek word is translated “law”?

Is nomos referring to Mosaic Torah here—or something else?

What is the problem Paul is solving?

Justification?

Condemnation?

Sin?

Jew-Gentile separation?

Circumcision?

Old covenant administration?

Human regulations?

Who is Paul addressing?

Jew?

Gentile?

Mixed assembly?

Is circumcision part of the dispute?

What is circumcision being made to mean?

Does the interpretation contradict Paul's positive statements about Torah?

Romans 3:31.

Romans 7:12.

Romans 7:14.

Romans 8:4.

Romans 13.

First Corinthians 7:19.

If so, keep studying.

Does the interpretation ignore the New Covenant changes?

Hebrews matters too.

Do not overcorrect.

Is “works of law” being assumed to mean all obedience without argument?

Read Galatians 2.

Study the historical phrase.

Is “under law” being treated as a dictionary definition for Torah?

Read the whole paragraph.

Is “curse of law” being changed into “law is a curse”?

Read Deuteronomy.

Is telos being translated theologically before context is examined?

Compare translations.

Is Colossians 2:14 being quoted as “the law was nailed to the cross”?

Look up cheirographon.

Is Acts 21 being ignored?

Ask why.

Does the proposed Paul contradict Paul?

If yes:

keep turning pages.

One More Question

Imagine you had never been taught:

“Paul abolished the Law.”

You simply read Paul.

You read Romans 3.

Faith does not nullify Torah.

You read Romans 7.

Torah is holy.

The commandment is righteous and good.

You read Romans 8.

Spirit-led believers embody Torah's righteous requirement.

You read Romans 13.

Love fulfills commandments like:

do not murder,

do not commit adultery,

do not steal,

do not covet.

You read First Corinthians.

Keeping God's commandments matters.

Then you read Galatians.

Paul refuses to let Gentile believers be forced into circumcision for justification.

He rejects works of law as the basis of being declared righteous.

He says they are not under the paidagōgos.

He says they are not under law when led by the Spirit.

But the Spirit produces a life opposed to idolatry, sexual immorality, hatred, drunkenness, and the works of the flesh.

Then you read Acts.

Somebody says:

“Paul teaches Jews to abandon Moses.”

And the leaders respond:

“Let's show everyone that isn't true.”

Paul participates.

Then Paul says:

“I believe everything in accordance with the Torah and Prophets.”

Then:

“I have committed no offense against Jewish law.”

Would you naturally conclude:

“Paul's central message was that Yehovah's instruction no longer matters”?

I would not.

I would conclude:

Paul is making distinctions we had better learn how to make.

Final Thought

I think Paul has been made to carry arguments he never intended to carry.

He has been recruited to teach:

grace without obedience,

faith without faithfulness,

Spirit without instruction,

freedom without boundaries,

and Messiah against Moses.

I do not believe that is the Paul I meet when I keep reading.

But neither do I meet a Paul who believes Messiah changed nothing.

Paul's world has been rearranged around Yeshua.

Justification is through faith.

The Gentiles are welcomed.

Circumcision cannot purchase covenant status.

Boasting is excluded.

The Spirit transforms.

The New Covenant has arrived.

The old covenantal administration does not remain untouched.

But Yehovah did not become confused about righteousness.

Paul does not announce that adultery became holy.

That idolatry became freedom.

That stealing became grace.

That coveting became Spirit-led.

He keeps reaching back into Torah to tell believers what love, holiness, and righteousness look like.