Some prominent Jewish (and liberal Christian) scholars have pointed to Paul as the “founder of Christianity,” arguing that Jesus was a good, Torah-keeping rabbi but that Paul was the one who deviated from the Jewish roots of the faith, abolished the Torah and started a new Gentile religion. Is there any truth to this claim?
On the one hand, there are a number of verses in his letters that seem to support the theory that he nullified the Torah, such as:
For he [Jesus] himself is our peace, who has made the two one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, by abolishing in his flesh the law with its commandments and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new man out of the two, thus making peace, and in this one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility.
Ephesians 2:14–16
Therefore no one will be declared righteous in his sight by observing the law; rather, through the law we become conscious of sin.
Romans 3:20
Before this faith came, we were held prisoners by the law, locked up until faith should be revealed. So the law was put in charge to lead us to Christ that we might be justified by faith. Now that faith has come, we are no longer under the supervision of the law.
Galatians 3:23–25
Neither circumcision nor uncircumcision means anything; what counts is a new creation.
Galatians 6:15
See also Romans 2:28–29; 4:13–15; 6:14; 7:5–6, 8–9; 10:4; 1 Corinthians 7:19; 15:56–57; Galatians 2:15–16; 3:10–13; 5:4, 18. Verses such as these, especially as traditionally interpreted by the Church, would seem to make clear that Paul did, in fact, abolish the Law.
There are two major points that can be raised against this, however. First, Paul had many positive, affirming things to say about the Torah: “It is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous” (Romans 2:13); “Circumcision has value if you observe the law, but if you break the law, you have become as though you had not been circumcised” (2:25); “Do we, then, nullify the law by this faith? Not at all! Rather, we uphold the law” (3:31); “What shall we say, then? Is the law sin? Certainly not! Indeed I would not have known what sin was except through the law. . . . So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good. . . . We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin” (7:7, 12, 14); “For what the law was powerless to do in that it was weakened by the sinful nature, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful man to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in sinful man, in order that the righteous requirements of the law might be fully met in us, who do not live according to the sinful nature but according to the Spirit” (8:3–4); see also Romans 10:4, as rendered in the Jewish New Testament (in contrast with the translation of this verse in most Christian translations).[232]
Second, according to the book of Acts, Paul himself lived in obedience to the Law. If the Torah was such a bad thing, and if he abolished it, why then in Acts 18 did he take on himself a Nazarite vow prescribed by the Torah—without any coercion or pressure to do so (see verse 18)? If Paul abolished the Law, why didn’t he agree with the rumors that he was guilty of teaching “all the Jews who live among the Gentiles to turn away from Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or live according to our customs” (21:21)? To the contrary, he went out of his way to demonstrate—in the words of Jacob (James) that “there is no truth in these reports about you, but that you yourself are living in obedience to the law” (verse 24; see also 22:3–5; 23:6–9; 26:4–7; 28:17; notice also the ready access that Paul had into the synagogues, indicating that he was recognized as a Jew; see Acts 13:13–15; 14:1; 16:4).
How, then, do we reconcile these two apparently contradictory Pauls, one who was pro-Torah and the other who was anti-Torah; one who lived by the Law and the other who said we were no longer under the Law?
When responding to the question, “Did Jesus abolish the Law?” I mentioned that multiple volumes have been written on this subject. Even more volumes—and countless articles—have been written on the subject of Paul and the Law, with very little consensus between the positions.[233] Nonetheless, I do believe that certain conclusions are unavoidable.[234]
(1) Although Paul lived as a Torah-observant Jew (with the exception, perhaps, of breaking certain laws—such as dietary laws—in order to bring the Good News to the Gentiles), he taught clearly that we—meaning both Jewish and Gentile believers—are not under the law, which has at least three applications. First, we are not under the law’s condemnation (see Romans 8:1–4); second, we are not under the law as a system of justification (see Romans 3:19–24); third, we are not under the law as a tutor to bring us to the Messiah (see Galatians 3:23–25).
(2) For Paul, Jesus the Messiah was central, not Torah. Were the two contradictory to him? Certainly not. But since Jesus fulfilled the Torah and Prophets, that means that everything was pointing to Him (see #46). Only someone totally centered on Yeshua and for whom Torah was secondary could write these words:
If anyone else thinks he has reasons to put confidence in the flesh, I have more: circumcised on the eighth day, of the people of Israel, of the tribe of Benjamin, a Hebrew of Hebrews; in regard to the law, a Pharisee; as for zeal, persecuting the church; as for legalistic righteousness, faultless.
But whatever was to my profit I now consider loss for the sake of [Messiah]. What is more, I consider everything a loss compared to the surpassing greatness of knowing [Messiah] Jesus my Lord, for whose sake I have lost all things. I consider them rubbish, that I may gain [Messiah] and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which is through faith in [Messiah]—the righteousness that comes from God and is by faith. I want to know [Messiah] and the power of his resurrection and the fellowship of sharing in his sufferings, becoming like him in his death, and so, somehow, to attain to the resurrection from the dead.
Philippians 3:4–11
In this light, Paul wrote that God will “bring all things in heaven and on earth together under one head, even [Messiah]”—not Torah (Ephesians 1:10). A simple, albeit lengthy, exercise will confirm this: Read Paul’s letters and take Jesus out. There is nothing left! Then, try taking out Torah: Jesus is still left!
(3) Paul stood firmly against all forms of ethnic and spiritual exclusivity, and some scholars have seen this as the primary issue Paul had with the Law. He therefore opposed any notion that Jews stood on a higher plane than Gentile believers (see Romans 2:25–27; 3:9; 10:11–13) or that, as Jews, they had some type of guaranteed and secure spiritual status (John the Immerser addressed this as well; see Matthew 3:7–10). There were certainly divine privileges given to the Jewish people (see Romans 3:1–3; 11:16), but not a higher spiritual status outside of faith in Jesus.
(4) Paul emphasized the surpassing greatness of God’s new covenant and the glory of life in the Spirit. It is true that the first covenant was glorious, but it was not to be compared with the glory of the new covenant: “For what was glorious has no glory now in comparison with the surpassing glory. And if what was fading away came with glory, how much greater is the glory of that which lasts!” (2 Corinthians 3:10–11; all of 2 Corinthians 3 is relevant). The emphasis here and elsewhere is clearly on walking in newness of life by the power of the Spirit: “So I say, live by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the sinful nature. . . . But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under law. . . . Those who belong to Christ Jesus have crucified the sinful nature with its passions and desires. Since we live by the Spirit, let us keep in step with the Spirit” (Galatians 5:16, 18, 24–25; see also Romans 8:1–14).
(5) Paul understood that the new order had broken in and that we were already experiencing the life of the world to come while still in this world. That, too, changed our relationship to the Torah. After all, when we leave this world and enter fully into our resurrected state, our relationship to God’s commandments will, quite obviously, be very different. Paul stated that, already in this age, we are partaking of the life and order of the world to come (see Ephesians 1:3; 2:6), and from that vantage point we are to deal with sin and the flesh (see Colossians 3:1–14).
There are some rabbinic traditions that state that there will be certain changes in the Torah in the world to come. For example, the only sacrifices in the world to come will be thanksgiving offerings, and even unclean animals will be considered clean in the world to come.[235] These concepts are not unrelated to some of Paul’s teachings.
In conclusion, having laid out some of the main lines of Paul’s teachings, I should note that some Messianic Jews would want to qualify these statements and make the case that all Messianic Jews are called to live in accordance with Torah as a covenantal responsibility (that is, as part of Jewish calling but having nothing to do with salvation, forgiveness of sins or righteousness). On the other hand we can state emphatically that Paul never required Gentile believers to observe the Torah, and he flatly rebuked them when they thought that circumcision or Torah observance was required or could deepen their spiritual standing in any way. Rather, in keeping with the principles set forth by Yeshua, he understood what really mattered and emphasized the righteousness that came by faith. His emphasis to Jewish believers in terms of what mattered most would doubtless be the same.