By 
One of the most troubling doctrines I continue to encounter in certain forms of modern Christianity is the claim that the Torah itself is a curse.
For Jewish people who encounter this teaching, the implications are enormous.
The Torah is the revelation given through Moshe. It contains the commandments of the Eternal, the covenantal instructions given to Israel, and the foundation upon which the Prophets themselves stand. The Psalms celebrate Torah. The prophets call Israel back to obedience. Yeshua quotes Torah. Paul quotes Torah. The earliest Jewish followers of Yeshua continued participating in Jewish communal and Temple life.
Yet somehow, millions of people have been taught that Paul came along and declared this same Torah to be a curse from which humanity needed liberation.
But did Paul actually say that?
The answer is no.
When Paul's writings are placed back into their biblical and Jewish context, an important distinction emerges:
The Torah is not the curse. The curse is the covenantal judgment that results from transgression.
These are not the same thing.
Paul never says, "The Torah is a curse."
Instead, in Galatians, he speaks about "the curse of the Torah" and quotes directly from the Torah itself to explain what he means.
That distinction changes the entire discussion.
This study will examine the major passages commonly used to argue that the Torah was abolished, cursed, or nailed to the cross. We will look at Galatians, Romans, Matthew, Colossians, Acts, Jeremiah, and Hebrews and ask a simple question:
What do these texts actually say when read in their historical, linguistic, and Jewish context?
1 The Starting Point: What Does the Tanach Say About Torah?
Before interpreting Paul, we need to establish something fundamental.
Paul did not invent the concept of Torah.
The Hebrew word תורה — Torah fundamentally carries the sense of instruction or teaching. Depending on context, it can refer specifically to the Torah of Moshe or more broadly to divine instruction.
Throughout the Tanach, Torah is not portrayed as something intrinsically evil.
Psalm 19 declares that the Torah of יהוה is perfect.
Psalm 1 describes the righteous person as someone who delights in the Torah of יהוה and meditates upon it.
Psalm 119 repeatedly celebrates the commandments, statutes, judgments, and instructions of the Eternal.
The Torah itself presents Israel with both blessing and curse.
This is extremely important.
The commandments are not themselves the curse.
Rather, covenant obedience brings blessing, while covenant rebellion brings judgment.
We see this framework clearly in passages such as Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 27–30.
This means that long before Paul wrote Galatians, the Torah already contained the theological framework Paul would later discuss:
commandment → obedience or disobedience → blessing or judgment.
Therefore, when Paul speaks about a "curse" in connection with Torah, we cannot automatically conclude that he is calling the Torah itself a curse.
We must ask:
What curse?
And fortunately, Paul tells us.
2 Galatians 3:10 — Paul's Argument Comes Directly From Torah
Galatians 3:10 is one of the primary passages used to teach that the Torah is a curse.
Paul writes that those who rely upon "works of the law" are under a curse and then quotes:
"Cursed is everyone who does not continue in all things written in the Book of the Law, to do them."
Where did Paul get this?
From Deuteronomy 27:26.
This changes the discussion immediately.
Paul is not inventing a Christian doctrine declaring that Torah is evil.
He is quoting Torah.
And what does the Torah itself say?
The curse falls upon the person who fails to uphold the covenantal commandments.
Think carefully about the logic.
If Torah itself were the curse, then obedience to Torah should logically bring the curse.
But Deuteronomy presents precisely the opposite framework.
The covenant curses are associated with disobedience.
Paul's argument therefore cannot simply be reduced to:
"Torah = curse."
That is not what the text says.
The more precise distinction is:
Torah establishes God's covenantal standard. Transgression brings judgment.
The problem is not that God's instruction is evil.
The problem is human sin.
And Paul develops exactly this problem elsewhere in his writings.
3 "The Curse of the Torah" Is Not the Same as "The Torah Is a Curse"
Galatians 3:13 says that Messiah redeemed us from:
"the curse of the law."
Notice the wording.
It does not say:
"Messiah redeemed us from the Torah because the Torah is a curse."
The object of redemption is the curse associated with violation, not necessarily the Torah itself.
This distinction is essential.
Imagine a legal system that establishes a penalty for murder.
If someone is sentenced under that law, the existence of a penalty does not mean the entire law itself is evil.
The judgment results from violating the standard.
Paul's argument concerns humanity's problem under sin and the resulting condemnation.
Therefore, I would refine a statement sometimes made in Torah-observant circles.
It is not technically precise to say simply:
"Sin is the curse."
Rather:
Sin is the transgression, and the curse is the covenantal judgment resulting from transgression.
That is a much stronger formulation because it preserves the distinction already present within Torah itself.
Paul's argument in Galatians concerns how people are justified before God and redeemed from condemnation.
It does not require the conclusion that God's commandments somehow became evil.
4 Paul's Own Words Make the "Torah Is a Curse" Interpretation Extremely Difficult
If Paul believed Torah itself was a curse, we encounter an immediate problem.
In Romans 7:12, Paul says:
"The law is holy, and the commandment holy and righteous and good."
Consider those words:
Holy.
Righteous.
Good.
How can the Torah simultaneously be intrinsically:
holy, righteous, and good
and
an evil curse from which humanity must escape?
Paul himself anticipates the problem in Romans 7.
He essentially asks whether the Torah itself is responsible for death.
His answer distinguishes the commandment from the power of sin operating through human transgression.
The problem is not that God's commandment became evil.
The problem is sin.
This is completely consistent with the Torah's own covenantal framework.
The commandment identifies the standard.
Human beings transgress.
Judgment follows.
The solution to judgment cannot logically require declaring God's righteous standard itself evil.
5 Romans 3:31 — Does Faith Abolish Torah?
Paul makes another extraordinary statement in Romans 3:31:
"Do we then nullify the law through faith? May it never be! On the contrary, we establish the law."
Whatever theological system we construct around Paul must account for this statement.
Paul does not say:
"Now that faith has arrived, Torah is meaningless."
His language goes in the opposite direction.
This does not settle every debate about how Paul believed particular Torah commandments applied to Jews and Gentiles. Those are separate and complex questions.
But it does establish something important:
Paul did not present faith as proof that Torah itself was worthless or evil.
Therefore, interpretations of Galatians that turn Paul into someone condemning the Torah as a divine mistake must be reconsidered alongside Paul's other statements.
The same Paul who discusses "the curse of the Torah" also calls the commandment holy, righteous, and good.
The same Paul who emphasizes justification by faith asks whether faith nullifies Torah—and answers emphatically that it does not.
Any serious interpretation must hold all these statements together.
6 Yeshua: "I Did Not Come to Abolish"
Now we come to Yeshua himself.
Matthew 5:17 records Yeshua saying:
"Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Prophets."
The Greek verb translated "abolish" is καταλύω — katalyō, which can carry meanings such as destroy, tear down, or overthrow depending upon context.
Yeshua explicitly denies that this is his mission.
He then says he came not to abolish but to fulfill.
The Greek verb is:
πληρόω — plēroō
This word can mean to fill, fulfill, bring to completion, or bring something to its intended fullness depending on context.
We should be careful here.
It would be an overstatement to claim that plēroō linguistically means only "teach fully" and therefore can never involve fulfillment or completion. Greek vocabulary does not work that mechanically.
But neither does "fulfill" automatically mean:
"abolish."
In fact, Yeshua has just explicitly denied abolition.
The immediate continuation reinforces the seriousness of Torah rather than portraying it as an evil curse.
Whatever theological meaning one assigns to "fulfill," the interpretation must respect Yeshua's explicit contrast:
not abolish — but fulfill.
Reading "fulfill" as simply another word for "abolish" collapses the distinction Yeshua himself makes.
7 Yeshua's Debates Were Jewish Debates
Another major problem arises when people imagine the Gospels as a conflict between: Jesus versus Judaism.
That is historically simplistic.
Yeshua was Jewish.
His disciples were Jewish.
His earliest followers operated within a Jewish world.
Many controversies recorded in the Gospels concern questions already being debated within Jewish society.
One famous example involves divorce.
The question of permissible grounds for divorce existed within competing Jewish interpretive traditions associated with the schools of Hillel and Shammai.
Therefore, disagreement over Torah interpretation does not automatically mean rejection of Torah.
This distinction matters enormously.
A rabbi arguing that another interpretation of a commandment is wrong is not necessarily arguing that the commandment should cease to exist.
Yeshua's criticism frequently concerns interpretation, hypocrisy, misplaced priorities, and human traditions.
Those categories should not automatically be transformed into:
"Torah is abolished."
That conclusion must be demonstrated from the text rather than assumed.
8 "An Eye for an Eye" and the Problem of Context
Consider Yeshua's discussion of "an eye for an eye."
Some readers assume Yeshua is rejecting Torah.
But the Torah passages containing lex talionis—the principle of proportional justice—occur within legal and judicial contexts.
See:
Exodus 21:22–25
Leviticus 24:17–22
Deuteronomy 19:15–21
These passages concern justice.
They establish proportionality.
They prevent unlimited retaliation.
But using a judicial principle as personal permission for vengeance is something entirely different.
When Yeshua teaches against personal retaliation, this need not mean:
"God's Torah was wrong."
It can instead mean that a judicial standard should not be weaponized as justification for private vengeance.
Once again, interpretation matters.
9 Colossians 2:14 — What Was Actually Nailed to the Cross?
Another frequently cited passage is Colossians 2:14.
Some Christians have been taught:
"The Torah was nailed to the cross."
But the Greek text deserves closer attention.
The word used is:
χειρόγραφον — cheirographon
This is not the ordinary Greek word νόμος — nomos, meaning law.
Cheirographon refers to a handwritten document and could function in documentary contexts as a record or certificate of indebtedness. Modern translations consequently render the passage with expressions such as "record of debt," "certificate of indebtedness," or similar language.
That is significant.
Paul does not simply write:
"God nailed the Torah to the cross."
The text speaks about something that stood against us, associated with decrees or legal demands, being erased or canceled.
The precise interpretation of Colossians 2:14 is debated, and we should acknowledge that.
But one thing deserves emphasis:
The verse itself does not explicitly identify the cheirographon as the Torah of Moshe.
The Greek vocabulary does not justify casually replacing cheirographon with "Torah."
A strong contextual reading understands the imagery as the cancellation of the hostile record of indebtedness—the record standing against the sinner—rather than the destruction of God's entire revelation.
This reading also harmonizes naturally with Paul's other statements about Torah being holy, righteous, and good.
10 Acts 21 Creates a Serious Problem for the "Paul Abolished Torah" Narrative
Acts 21 is one of the most important passages in this entire discussion.
Paul arrives in Jerusalem and meets with Ya'akov—James—and the elders.
They tell him that thousands among the Jewish believers are zealous for Torah.
Then they address a rumor.
Paul has been accused of teaching Jews living among the nations to abandon Moshe.
The elders propose a public action involving men under vows and Temple purification.
Why?
So that people would understand there was no truth to the accusation and that Paul himself lived in an orderly manner.
Paul participates.
Acts 21:20–26 must therefore be taken seriously.
If Paul spent his ministry teaching Jewish believers:
"The Torah is an evil curse that God abolished,"
then the scene becomes extremely difficult to explain.
Paul's participation would either be deceptive theater or evidence that the popular caricature of his teaching is incomplete.
The narrative itself presents the action as a response to accusations concerning Paul's relationship to Torah.
11 The Nazarite Connection and Temple Sacrifices
The background to Acts 21 appears connected to vows and purification procedures, commonly discussed in relation to the Nazirite legislation of Numbers 6.
This raises another important issue.
Completion of a Nazirite vow involved Temple offerings.
Yet Acts does not portray Paul's participation in Temple procedures as apostasy from Yeshua.
That historical reality complicates simplistic claims that the earliest followers of Yeshua understood his death to mean that every form of Temple sacrifice immediately became forbidden.
The Second Temple was still standing.
Jewish followers of Yeshua continued interacting with it.
Later, the situation changed dramatically—not because Acts records an apostolic declaration that Torah had ceased to exist, but because Rome destroyed the Second Temple in 70 CE.
After the Temple's destruction, Torah-prescribed sacrificial worship could no longer continue in the required sanctuary context.
This leads to a distinction I believe is important:
Sacrifices are not presently being offered because there is no functioning Beit HaMikdash in Jerusalem where Torah-authorized sacrificial worship can operate.
From today's historical perspective, sacrificial service is therefore suspended by the absence of the Temple.
That is different from saying:
"The Torah itself was declared evil and abolished."
12 Jeremiah 31: The New Covenant Writes Torah on the Heart
Perhaps one of the greatest problems for the "Torah is a curse" doctrine comes from the prophecy of the New Covenant itself.
Jeremiah 31:31 declares that the covenant is made with:
the House of Israel
and
the House of Judah.
Already, this should challenge interpretations that erase Israel from the prophecy.
But Jeremiah continues.
The Eternal declares that He will place His Torah within them and write it upon their hearts.
The Hebrew word is:
תורתי — torati
"My Torah."
This is extraordinary.
The New Covenant prophecy does not say:
"I will finally free them from My terrible Torah."
It says, in substance:
I will put My Torah within them.
The transformation concerns the location and internalization of divine instruction.
Stone alone is insufficient when the human heart rebels.
The prophetic solution is a transformed people with God's instruction written internally.
This is why portraying the New Covenant as God's declaration that His Torah was intrinsically evil creates a serious contradiction with Jeremiah's own prophecy.
The New Covenant does not originate as an anti-Jewish concept.
It originates in the Hebrew prophets.
And Jeremiah explicitly names Israel and Judah as its covenantal recipients.
13 What About Hebrews?
Hebrews deserves careful treatment because it contains some of the strongest language concerning covenant, priesthood, sacrifice, sanctuary, and transition.
But Hebrews must be read in its own Jewish and Temple-centered framework.
Hebrews 7–10 is saturated with:
priesthood,
Melchizedek,
Levitical service,
blood,
sacrifices,
sanctuary,
veil,
Holy Place,
Holy of Holies,
earthly patterns,
heavenly realities.
Hebrews unquestionably argues for the superiority and efficacy of Yeshua's priestly mediation.
But we should distinguish that claim from later theological conclusions that go beyond what the author explicitly states.
Hebrews does not say:
"God hates Israel."
It does not say:
"The Torah was evil."
It does not say:
"The promises to Abraham have been canceled."
Hebrews quotes Jeremiah's New Covenant prophecy—the very prophecy in which God's Torah is written upon the heart.
Therefore, whatever Hebrews means by covenantal and priestly transition must be interpreted in conversation with Jeremiah itself.
My own reading emphasizes the transition from earthly Levitical administration toward Yeshua's heavenly Melchizedek priesthood and the contrast between earthly sanctuary patterns and heavenly realities.
I recognize that scholars and Jewish believers in Yeshua differ over exactly how Hebrews 8–10 should be understood.
But those disagreements do not justify the simplistic statement:
"Hebrews teaches that Torah is a curse."
It does not.
14 Second Temple Context Changes the Conversation
The New Testament did not emerge from medieval Europe.
It emerged from the Jewish world of the late Second Temple period.
That world contained:
Pharisaic traditions,
Sadducean traditions,
priestly movements,
apocalyptic traditions,
sectarian communities such as the group associated with Qumran,
debates over purity,
debates over calendar,
debates over Temple authority,
debates over resurrection,
debates over halakhic interpretation.
Yeshua and his earliest followers lived within this environment.
Paul himself was Jewish.
Therefore, when we encounter disputes over Torah in the New Testament, we must resist the temptation to interpret every disagreement through later categories such as:
Christianity versus Judaism.
The historical reality was far more complicated.
Many of these controversies began as internal Jewish debates.
The question was often not:
"Should God's Torah exist?"
The question was:
"How should God's Torah be understood and applied?"
Those are fundamentally different questions.
15 The Torah Identifies Sin; It Is Not Identical to Sin
Paul's theology repeatedly recognizes the relationship between Torah and human sin.
But identifying sin does not make Torah sinful.
A mirror revealing dirt on someone's face did not create the dirt.
Likewise, a legal standard exposing wrongdoing is not identical to the wrongdoing it exposes.
Paul's argument is that human beings need redemption because of sin.
The Torah reveals God's standard.
Human beings violate that standard.
Judgment follows.
Messiah brings redemption.
Nothing in that sequence requires the conclusion:
"Therefore God's Torah was evil."
In fact, Paul explicitly denies that conclusion when he calls the commandment holy, righteous, and good.
16 The Contradiction Created by the "Torah Is a Curse" Doctrine
Consider what happens if we accept the claim that Torah itself is a curse.
We would have to reconcile the following propositions:
The Psalms celebrate Torah.
The prophets call Israel back to Torah.
Yeshua says he did not come to abolish Torah and the Prophets.
Paul calls the commandment holy, righteous, and good.
Paul says faith does not nullify Torah.
Jeremiah says the New Covenant places God's Torah within His people.
And yet we are asked to believe:
"The Torah itself is a curse."
That interpretation creates more problems than it solves.
A much more coherent reading distinguishes between:
Torah
sin
transgression
condemnation
covenantal curse
and
redemption.
These concepts interact.
But they are not interchangeable.
17 What I Believe Paul Is Actually Teaching
Paul's argument is not:
"God gave Israel a terrible curse called Torah, but Yeshua finally rescued humanity from it."
Rather, the biblical framework is:
God revealed His righteous standard.
Human beings sin.
Torah exposes transgression.
Covenantal violation carries judgment.
Human beings cannot justify themselves through their own righteousness.
Messiah provides redemption from condemnation and the curse resulting from transgression.
Faith does not transform evil into good.
Nor does faith transform good into evil.
And according to Paul himself:
The Torah is holy.
The commandment is holy.
The commandment is righteous.
The commandment is good.
That is Paul's own testimony.
18 Final Conclusion: The Torah Is Not the Curse
The doctrine that "the Torah is a curse" collapses distinctions that the biblical texts themselves maintain.
Galatians does not say:
"The Torah is a curse."
Paul quotes Deuteronomy to discuss the curse associated with failure to uphold God's commandments.
Romans does not call Torah evil.
It calls the commandment holy, righteous, and good.
Romans does not say faith destroys Torah.
Paul explicitly rejects that conclusion.
Colossians 2:14 does not explicitly say that the Torah of Moshe was nailed to the cross. It uses the Greek term χειρόγραφον — cheirographon, language associated with a written record or certificate of indebtedness, and many translations consequently render the object being canceled as a record of debt or indebtedness.
Acts 21 portrays Paul participating in Temple purification procedures while responding to accusations that he taught Jews to abandon Moshe.
Matthew records Yeshua explicitly denying that he came to abolish Torah and the Prophets.
And Jeremiah's New Covenant prophecy does not erase Torah.
It internalizes it.
The Eternal declares that His Torah will be placed within His people and written upon their hearts.
So no:
The Torah is not the curse.
The more precise biblical framework is this:
Sin is transgression.
Torah identifies the divine standard.
Disobedience brings judgment.
The covenant curse is the consequence of rebellion.
Redemption addresses the sinner's condemnation.
We should never confuse the righteous standard with the penalty incurred by violating it.
And we should certainly never place words into Paul's mouth that Paul himself does not say.
If Yeshua was without sin, then he could not simultaneously embody rebellion against the commandments of the Eternal, because sin itself is described in the New Testament in relation to lawlessness.
The supposed contradiction between Yeshua and Torah—or between Paul and Torah—often becomes far less certain when these writings are returned to their Jewish context.
The New Testament did not fall from the sky disconnected from Israel.
Its authors constantly quote Torah.
They quote the Prophets.
They quote the Psalms.
They debate Jewish questions.
They participate in a Second Temple Jewish world.
And the very prophecy they identify as the New Covenant comes from the Jewish prophet Jeremiah and is explicitly addressed to the House of Israel and the House of Judah.
The promise is not that the Eternal would finally liberate humanity from His Torah.
The promise is that He would write His Torah upon the heart.
That distinction changes everything.
Primary Sources and Texts for Further Study
For readers who want to examine this subject independently, I recommend reading the passages in their complete literary context rather than isolated verses:
Deuteronomy 27:26 — the source Paul quotes concerning the curse.
Deuteronomy 28–30 — covenant blessing, curse, judgment, repentance, and restoration.
Leviticus 26 — covenant blessing and judgment.
Psalm 1 — delight in the Torah of יהוה.
Psalm 19:7–11 — the perfection and goodness of divine instruction.
Psalm 119 — extended meditation on Torah and commandments.
Jeremiah 31:31–34 — the New Covenant with Israel and Judah and Torah written internally.
Matthew 5:17–19 — Yeshua on Torah and the Prophets.
Matthew 23 — Yeshua's disputes with scribes and Pharisees.
Acts 21:20–26 — Paul, Jerusalem, Torah accusations, vows, and Temple purification.
Romans 3:31 — faith and the establishment of Torah.
Romans 7:7–25 — Torah, commandment, sin, and death.
Galatians 3:10–14 — the curse and Paul's use of Deuteronomy.
Colossians 2:13–14 — cheirographon and the cancellation of the record standing against us.
Hebrews 7–10 — Melchizedek, priesthood, covenant, sacrifice, and the heavenly sanctuary.
1 John 3:4 — sin and lawlessness.
For accessible comparison of the Hebrew Tanach and the broader Jewish textual tradition, Sefaria's Jewish Text Library provides Hebrew and English texts.
A Final Word from
This study is part of the Baby Lady Educational Studies project.
My purpose is not to replace one system of human tradition with another. It is to encourage people to return to the sources—to read Torah, Tanach, and the writings concerning Yeshua within the historical and Jewish world in which these conversations originally occurred.
I believe Yeshua must be understood within Judaism, not as the founder of a religion designed to teach Jewish people that the Torah given to their ancestors was an evil curse.
I also believe we must be willing to correct our arguments when the evidence requires it. If a Greek word has a broader semantic range, we should acknowledge it. If a passage has competing scholarly interpretations, we should say so. If our own theological conclusions go beyond what a source explicitly states, we should distinguish interpretation from textual fact.
Truth does not need exaggeration.
The strongest case is the one that survives careful examination.
And on this question, the distinction could not be more important:
Paul speaks of redemption from the curse associated with transgression. He does not call the Torah itself a curse.
The Torah that the Psalms celebrate, that the prophets defend, that Yeshua quotes, that Paul calls holy and good, and that Jeremiah says will be written upon the heart should not be transformed into something the biblical writers themselves never call it.
The Torah is not the curse.
The problem is human rebellion against the Eternal.
And redemption from the consequences of that rebellion should never be confused with declaring the Eternal's own instruction evil.
—
Baby Lady Educational Studies
