Why does the heretic Paul hate the Mosaic Law?

To understand Paul’s position, it is essential first to grasp the significance of the Mosaic Law, also known as the Torah or Pentateuch. The Law, comprising commandments, ordinances, and rituals, forms the backbone of Jewish religious practice and identity. It governs everything from moral behavior to ceremonial observances, dietary restrictions, and social justice. For first-century Jews, the Law was not merely a set of rules—it was the very heart of their covenant with God, a sacred trust that set them apart from other nations.

Paul’s Background: A Pharisee Zealous for the Law

Paul was not a stranger to the Mosaic Law; in fact, he was a product of it. Born Saul of Tarsus, he described himself as a “Pharisee, son of Pharisees,” rigorously trained in the Law and zealous for its observance (Philippians 3:5-6). His early life was defined by strict adherence to Jewish tradition and the Mosaic commandments. What, then, led such a devoted observer of the Law to become its most famous critic—or, as some would say, its opponent?

Paul’s Encounter with Christ: A Radical Shift

The watershed moment in Paul’s life was his dramatic encounter with the risen Jesus on the road to Damascus. This event fundamentally altered his understanding of righteousness, salvation, and the role of the Law. Where once Paul saw the Law as the pathway to righteousness, he now viewed faith in Christ as the sole means by which humans could be justified before God. This shift did not spring from a hatred of the Law but from a profound theological conviction that, in Christ, God had inaugurated a new era.

Why Was Paul Accused of Hating the Law?

Paul’s letters—especially Romans, Galatians, and Philippians—contain numerous statements that critique or seemingly denigrate the Mosaic Law. He refers to the Law as a “ministry of death” (2 Corinthians 3:7), says that “by works of the law no one will be justified” (Galatians 2:16), and calls the Law “a yoke...that neither our fathers nor we have been able to bear” (Acts 15:10). Such statements have led some to accuse Paul of outright hostility toward the Law. But is this a fair assessment?

Paul’s Critique: The Law’s Inability to Save

At the heart of Paul’s critique is not a hatred of the Law itself, but rather an insistence that the Law cannot bring about ultimate salvation or righteousness. Paul argues that the Law, while holy and good, exposes human sinfulness and the inability of humans to fully obey God’s commands. In Romans 7, he writes, “I would not have known what sin was had it not been for the law...but when the commandment came, sin sprang to life and I died” (Romans 7:7-9). For Paul, the Law is diagnostic—a mirror that reveals sin but cannot cure it.

The Law as a Tutor

Paul employs the metaphor of the Law as a “paidagogos,” or tutor, in Galatians 3:24-25. The Law was put in charge to lead people to Christ, but now that faith has come, believers are no longer under the tutor. This metaphor suggests that the Law had a temporary, preparatory role in God’s plan. It was necessary, but its time of direct authority was meant to pass with the arrival of the Messiah.

The Problem of Legalism

Another dimension to Paul’s critique is his battle against legalism—the belief that strict adherence to the Law’s commands can make one righteous before God. Paul saw this as fundamentally misunderstanding both human nature and God’s grace. In Galatians, he asks rhetorically, “Did you receive the Spirit by the works of the law, or by believing what you heard?” (Galatians 3:2). For Paul, to insist on Law-keeping as a requirement for salvation is to “nullify the grace of God” (Galatians 2:21).

The Inclusion of Gentiles

A practical issue also undergirded Paul’s stance: the inclusion of Gentiles (non-Jews) into the people of God. The Mosaic Law, with its dietary restrictions, circumcision, and festival observances, posed significant barriers to Gentile converts. Paul argued that imposing the Law on Gentile believers was not only unnecessary but contrary to the gospel’s spirit of grace and universality. In Galatians, he fiercely resists the “Judaizers” who insisted that Gentiles must be circumcised and keep the Law to be fully included in the Christian community.

Paul’s Positive Statements About the Law

It would be a mistake, however, to portray Paul as monolithically negative about the Law. In Romans 7:12, he writes, “So then, the law is holy, and the commandment is holy, righteous and good.” In Romans 3:31, he insists, “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.” Paul’s concern was not the Law’s content but its misuse and misunderstanding as a means of earning God’s favor.

Paul and the Law in Practice

Despite his theological stance, Paul did not advocate lawlessness. He continued to observe Jewish customs when appropriate (Acts 21:20-26) and encouraged behaviors aligned with the moral core of the Law. His ethical instructions in his letters (e.g., Romans 12-15, Galatians 5-6) echo the Ten Commandments and other moral teachings of the Torah. Paul’s issue was never with the Law’s moral vision but with its role as a means of justification.

Was Paul a Heretic?

The charge that Paul was a “heretic” reflects more about those making the accusation than about Paul himself. In his own time, Paul faced opposition from certain Jewish Christians who believed that he had abandoned the faith’s foundations. Yet, the mainstream Christian tradition, from the earliest creeds onward, has affirmed Paul’s teachings as central to the faith. The New Testament itself records the “Jerusalem Council” (Acts 15) as ultimately affirming Paul’s position regarding Gentile inclusion and freedom from the Law.

Misunderstandings and Modern Reactions

Some modern readers, especially within movements that seek to return to “Hebraic roots” or Messianic Judaism, see Paul as a betrayer of the faith’s Jewish foundations. Others, influenced by antinomian readings, see him as advocating the abolition of all moral requirements. Both views, however, tend to misrepresent the complexity of Paul’s thought. He neither hated the Law nor advocated for moral anarchy. Instead, he offered a vision of faith that fulfills the Law’s deepest intentions through love and the Spirit (Romans 13:8-10).

Conclusion: Paul’s True Relationship with the Mosaic Law

Far from being a heretic who hated the Mosaic Law, Paul was a passionate Jew who came to see the Law’s fulfillment in Christ. His strong words about the Law were aimed at its misuse as a means of justification and exclusion, not at its intrinsic value or moral vision.