Paul’s Epistles vs. Torah: Contrasting Teachings and Interpretations

Qualifications for Widows’ Support (1 Timothy 5 vs. Torah)

In 1 Timothy 5:3–16, Paul gives detailed criteria for which widows should receive church support. For example, he says “A widow is to be put on the list only if she is not less than sixty years old, the wife of one man, and well known for good works (raising children, showing hospitality, washing the saints’ feet, etc.). He instructs that younger widows should remarry and that widows with family ought to be cared for by their relatives so as not to burden the church (1 Tim 5:4, 16). This teaching appears to narrow the support compared to the Torah’s more general commands.

Torah Principle: The Law of Moses repeatedly commands care for all widows as a vulnerable group, without listing age or marital history conditions. For instance, “You shall not mistreat any widow or fatherless child” (Exodus 22:22). The Torah provided practical means of support: the tithe every third year was shared with Levites, strangers, orphans and widows so “that they may eat and be filled” (Deuteronomy 14:29). Likewise, farmers were commanded to leave gleanings in the field for widows to collect (Deuteronomy 24:19). In short, the Torah’s provisions ensured all widows had a right to charity and justice, whereas Paul establishes an “enrollment” for widows who meet specific pious qualifications.

Women’s Head Coverings and Silence (1 Corinthians 11 & 14 vs. Torah)

In 1 Corinthians 11:4–16, Paul teaches that women in the assembly should cover their heads when praying or prophesying. He writes, “every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head… if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short”. He appeals to propriety and creation order, concluding that a covering (likely a veil or shawl) signifies a woman’s authority on her head (verse 10). Later, in 1 Corinthians 14:34–35, Paul adds “the women should keep silent in the churches. For they are not permitted to speak, but should be in submission, as the Law also says”. He instructs that if women have questions, they should ask their husbands at home. These directives go beyond anything in the Torah and can appear to contradict the Torah’s portrayal of women’s participation.

Torah Principle: Nowhere do Genesis–Deuteronomy command women to wear head coverings in worship or to remain absolutely silent. The Torah does mandate modesty and purity, but it gives no law requiring a head veil for ordinary women. (At most, Numbers 5:18 mentions uncovering a suspected adulteress’s hair, implying that covered hair was a cultural norm, not a divine ordinance.) Likewise, the Torah does not command women to be silent in congregational settings. In fact, women under the Law could participate in spiritual life: Miriam led Israel in worship (Exodus 15:20–21), and the Law expected “men, women, and little ones” all to assemble and hear the Torah read aloud (Deuteronomy 31:12). The “Law” that Paul cites about submission likely refers to the general creation order (e.g. Genesis 3:16, that man will rule over woman, or laws implying a wife’s subordination such as Numbers 30) rather than any explicit command that women never speak in worship.   Thus, Paul’s teaching seems stricter than the Torah’s silence on these issues.

Interpretation: Most scholars understand Paul’s instructions here as rooted in first-century cultural practice and church order rather than a direct repudiation of Torah. In Corinth, a head covering was a customary sign of modesty and marital propriety; for a woman to worship unveiled could be seen as disgraceful or rebellious in that culture. Paul’s appeal “as the Law says” likely invokes the principle of wifely submission under the Old Covenant (not a specific verse). Some even argue that 1 Cor 14:34–35 was addressing a local problem (perhaps disorderly chatter or a Corinthian question) and was not meant to silence all women absolutely, especially since in chapter 11 Paul allows women to pray and prophesy (with heads covered). Notably, “women are free to pray or prophesy” in the assembly as long as they show proper respect for authority. In essence, Paul is reinterpreting modesty and order for the church context. His directives do not come from Torah commands but from apostolic authority applying cultural wisdom (and possibly oral law traditions) to avoid offense. Some commentators thus see no conflict: the Torah didn’t require these practices, and Paul instituted them for good order. Others acknowledge a tension with the Bible’s earlier examples of women speaking, and they either attribute Paul’s words to specific circumstances or even consider the silence mandate an interpolation by a later editor. In any case, Paul’s aim was to uphold decency and respect, not to overturn a Torah command.

Circumcision and the Covenant Sign (Paul’s Teaching vs. Torah)

Perhaps the starkest contrast is in Paul’s teaching on circumcision. The Torah establishes circumcision as an everlasting sign of God’s covenant: “Every male among you shall be circumcised… My covenant shall be in your flesh for an everlasting covenant. Any uncircumcised male… shall be cut off from his people; he has broken My covenant” (Genesis 17:10–14). Obedience to this command was non-negotiable for Israel (cf. Leviticus 12:3, Joshua 5:2–8). Paul, however, reinterprets and even downplays circumcision’s religious necessity in the light of Christ.

In Galatians 5:2–4, Paul warns Gentile believers that if they get circumcised expecting spiritual benefit, they are actually obligating themselves to the whole Law and “have been severed from Christ.” He writes: “If you accept circumcision, Christ will be of no advantage to you… I testify again to every man who accepts circumcision that he is obligated to keep the whole Law. You who are trying to be justified by law have been alienated from Christ; you have fallen away from grace.”. This is a startling reversal of the Torah’s stance – rather than being the mark of God’s people, receiving circumcision (as a legal requirement) would, according to Paul, signify turning back to the old covenant for justification, thus forfeiting the grace of Christ. Paul similarly tells the Corinthians that “circumcision is nothing, and uncircumcision is nothing” in itself (1 Corinthians 7:19), and he emphasizes inward, spiritual circumcision of the heart (Romans 2:28–29, Philippians 3:3). In Galatians 6:15 he concludes, “Neither circumcision counts for anything, nor uncircumcision, but a new creation.” Such statements seemingly contradict the Torah’s eternal covenant of circumcision.

Torah Principle: Circumcision was instituted with Abraham and reaffirmed in the Law of Moses as a perpetual duty for God’s people. Genesis calls it an “everlasting covenant” in the flesh, and failure to perform it meant being “cut off” from Israel. By Torah standards, an uncircumcised male was outside the covenant (Genesis 17:14). Moreover, the Mosaic Law required even foreigners in Israel to be circumcised if they wanted to partake in Passover (Exodus 12:48). Thus, the Torah presents circumcision as absolutely binding for those within the covenant community.

The Law’s Status: Obsolete or Fulfilled? (Pauline Statements vs. Torah)

Paul’s epistles contain strong statements that appear to declare the Torah obsolete or inferior compared to the grace of Christ. In Romans and Galatians especially, he emphasizes that the Law of Moses cannot save and has been superseded by the new way of faith:

• Romans 7:6 – “But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.” Paul teaches that believers, through Christ’s death, have effectively died to the Mosaic Law’s binding authority. This implies the Law’s former jurisdiction over us is broken – a dramatic image of the Torah’s era ending for those in Christ. Similarly, he says “you also died to the law through the body of Christ” (Rom 7:4) and “Christ is the end of the law for righteousness to everyone who believes” (Rom 10:4). The Greek word for “end” (telos) can mean culmination or termination; either way, Paul asserts the law’s role in achieving righteousness has ceased in Christ.

• 2 Corinthians 3:7–11 – Paul explicitly contrasts the old covenant with the new: “If the ministry of death, carved in letters on stone, came with glory…will not the ministry of the Spirit have more glory?…What once had glory has come to have no glory at all, because of the glory that surpasses it. For if what was being brought to an end came with glory, much more will what is permanent have glory.” Here “letters on stone” refers to the tablets of the Law given to Moses. Paul calls that regime a temporary, fading glory, even a “ministry of death,” in contrast to the surpassing, permanent glory of the Spirit under the new covenant. The phrasing “brought to an end” (or fading, obsolete) strongly suggests the Torah’s covenant has fulfilled its purpose and is no longer in effect for justification. (The author of Hebrews echoes this, saying the old covenant is “obsolete and aging” and “will soon disappear” – Hebrews 8:13.)

• Galatians 3:24–25 – “The law was our guardian (schoolmaster) until Christ came, in order that we might be justified by faith. But now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” Paul uses an analogy: the Torah was like a tutor or babysitter for God’s people during their spiritual minority, meant to be temporary. Once Christ has come, the tutor’s role ends; believers mature into full sons of God through faith (Gal 3:26). In Galatians, Paul argues that returning to the law after Christ is like adults wanting to be minors again – he calls the Mosaic regulations “weak and worthless elementary principles” in comparison to life in Christ (Gal 4:9). He even warned that seeking justification through the law alienates one from Christ (Gal 5:4). These statements elevate the new covenant of grace far above the old covenant of law, implying the Torah’s legal system is no longer the governing code for God’s people.

Torah Principle: The Torah itself does not present its commandments as temporary or inferior. On the contrary, the Law is described as Israel’s wisdom and life (Deuteronomy 4:7–8, 32:46–47) and its commands are to be observed “forever” or “throughout your generations” in many cases. For example, keeping the Sabbath is called a “perpetual covenant” for Israel (Exodus 31:16–17), and the festivals are “a statute forever” in Israel’s generations (Leviticus 23:41). The impression from the Torah is that its covenant and commandments are enduring norms, integral to Israel’s righteousness (Deut 6:24–25). There is no hint in Genesis–Deuteronomy that the Law given at Sinai was merely a placeholder to expire when the Messiah came. Thus, Paul’s assertions of the law’s end or inferiority appear to contradict the Torah’s own claims of permanency.

Dietary Laws and Sacred Days (Paul’s Instructions vs. Torah Commandments)

Paul also teaches a relaxed approach toward food regulations and holy days that differs significantly from the Torah’s commandments. In Colossians 2:16–17, he writes: “Therefore let no one pass judgment on you in questions of food and drink, or with regard to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath. These are a shadow of the things to come, but the substance belongs to Christ.”. Similarly, in Romans 14 he addresses disputes about diet and days: “One person believes he may eat anything, while the weak person eats only vegetables. Let not the one who eats despise the one who abstains… One person esteems one day as better than another, while another esteems all days alike. Each one should be fully convinced in his own mind” (Rom 14:2–5). Paul himself is convinced “that nothing is unclean in itself” (Rom 14:14) and “all things are indeed clean” (14:20), referring to foods. In 1 Timothy 4:4–5, he likewise asserts “everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.”. And in Galatians 4:10, he chides the Galatians for returning to legalism by observing “days and months and seasons and years” (a reference to the Jewish liturgical calendar). All these verses indicate that Christians should not be bound by the Torah’s dietary laws or festival calendar, and that such matters are now optional “shadows” whose reality is found in Christ.

Torah Command: The Torah, however, contains detailed dietary rules and festival requirements that were mandatory under the old covenant. Leviticus 11 and Deuteronomy 14 distinguish clean and unclean foods – e.g., “the pig… is unclean for you. You shall not eat any of their flesh nor touch their carcasses”. Eating unclean animals or failing to observe dietary purity made an Israelite ceremonially unclean (Lev 11:24–28) and was considered an “abomination” (Deut 14:3, Isaiah 66:17, etc.). Likewise, the Torah commands strict observance of the Sabbath every seventh day (Exodus 20:8–11) and annual holy festivals such as Passover, Shavuot (Weeks), Sukkot (Tabernacles), the Day of Atonement, etc. (Leviticus 23). These were set times that Israel “shall celebrate… as a perpetual statute throughout your generations”. Failing to keep the Sabbath or certain festivals carried serious penalties (Exodus 31:14, Leviticus 23:29). In short, under Torah law, what one could eat was divinely restricted, and which days were sacred was non-negotiable. The community was even told not to tolerate individuals who ignored these holy days or ate unclean things.