This is one of the most common arguments in the Hebrew Roots Movement, and on the surface it has genuine force. Paul underwent a Nazirite vow (Acts 18:18). He circumcised Timothy (Acts 16:3). He observed Jewish calendar practices (Acts 20:16). He was arrested while performing purification rites in the temple (Acts 21:26). He declared to the Jerusalem elders that he had never taught Jewish believers to abandon Moses (Acts 21:24). He wrote that the law is holy, righteous, and good (Romans 7:12). He quoted the Torah constantly and grounded his entire gospel in the Old Testament scriptures.

The HRM conclusion: Paul kept Torah himself, therefore he never preached against it, therefore every reading of Paul that finds him teaching against Torah observance is a misreading. The problem is not Paul. The problem is fifteen centuries of misreading Paul.

The argument sounds compelling until you read Paul carefully in full - including the passages the HRM does not show you alongside the ones it does. When you read everything Paul says about his own practice, his own Torah credentials, and his own teaching on what Gentile believers are and are not required to do, a completely different picture emerges. Paul did sometimes observe Torah practices. He was also explicit, on the record, and in multiple letters about exactly why he did it - and his stated reasons do not support the HRM's conclusion at all. They undermine it entirely.

The Passage That Settles the Question About Paul's Personal Practice

Before examining the specific Torah-observant episodes in Acts, it is essential to read the passage where Paul himself explains his own missionary practice. This passage appears in 1 Corinthians 9:19–23, and it is the interpretive key to everything else. The HRM consistently avoids placing this passage alongside the Acts episodes it cites.

"For though I am free from all, I have made myself a servant to all, that I might win more of them. To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law (though I myself am not under the law) that I might win those under the law. To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law. To the weak I became weak, that I might win the weak. I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some. I do it all for the sake of the gospel."

Read that carefully. Paul says three things that are impossible to reconcile with the HRM position.

First: "I am free from all." Paul begins by asserting his freedom - from everyone, from every external requirement, from every covenantal obligation that might be imposed on him from outside. This is not the language of a Torah-observant believer describing his ongoing covenant duties. This is the language of a man who knows himself to be free and is describing how he voluntarily constrains that freedom for missionary purposes.

Second: "To those under the law I became as one under the law - though I myself am not under the law." Paul explicitly states that he is not under the law. This is not ambiguous. This is not a passage requiring special interpretive framework. Paul says it plainly: I am not under the law. When he observes Torah practices in Jewish contexts, he is not doing so as a covenant obligation. He is doing it as a missionary strategy - that I might win those under the law. He becomes as one under the law. He does not say he is under the law.

Third: "To those outside the law I became as one outside the law." When Paul is with Gentiles, he operates as someone outside the Torah's covenant framework. He does not require Gentile believers to adopt Torah practice. He does not himself observe Torah distinctives in Gentile contexts. He operates outside those boundaries - not in moral lawlessness, as he immediately clarifies ("not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ"), but outside the Mosaic covenant's specific requirements.

Everything Paul does in Acts with respect to Torah observance must be read through this lens, because Paul himself has told us what he is doing and why. He is a missionary adapting to his audience. He is not a Torah-observant believer fulfilling covenant obligations.

The Circumcision of Timothy - And the Non-Circumcision of Titus

Acts 16:3 records that Paul circumcised Timothy before taking him on his missionary journey. The HRM cites this as evidence that Paul affirmed circumcision and kept Torah. But the full picture requires reading one more verse and one more letter alongside it.

Acts 16:3 explains why Paul circumcised Timothy: "because of the Jews who were in those places, for they all knew that his father was a Greek." The reason is explicitly missionary. Timothy was of mixed heritage - Jewish mother, Greek father. To the Jewish communities Paul intended to reach, Timothy's status as uncircumcised would have been a stumbling block, closing doors before the gospel could be heard. Paul circumcised Timothy to remove a barrier to the mission, not to fulfil a covenant obligation.

Now read Galatians 2:3–5: "But even Titus, who was with me, was not compelled to be circumcised, though he was a Greek. Yet because of false brothers secretly brought in - who slipped in to spy out our freedom that we have in Christ Jesus, so that they might bring us into slavery - to them we did not yield in submission even for a moment, so that the truth of the gospel might be preserved for you."

Paul refused to circumcise Titus. Titus was a full Gentile, with no Jewish heritage, who had come to faith in Christ. When the circumcision party demanded his circumcision as a covenant requirement, Paul refused. He calls their demand slavery. He says yielding to it would have compromised the truth of the gospel. He did not yield even for a moment.

These two events - Timothy circumcised, Titus not circumcised - are not contradictory. They reveal exactly how Paul thought about circumcision. When circumcision was a matter of missionary strategy for reaching Jewish communities, Paul was willing to do it. When circumcision was demanded as a covenant requirement for Gentile believers, Paul refused it as a perversion of the gospel. The act is the same. The meaning is completely different. Paul was not inconsistent. He was operating on a principle he states clearly: the gospel is at stake when circumcision becomes obligatory. When it is simply strategic, it is a matter of freedom.

The HRM cites Timothy. It does not cite Titus alongside Timothy. Once you read both passages together, the argument from Timothy's circumcision collapses.

Acts 21 - The Most Misused Passage in the Debate

Acts 21:17–26 is the passage the HRM relies on most heavily. Paul arrives in Jerusalem. James and the elders tell him that thousands of Jewish believers are zealous for the law, and that there is a rumour Paul has been teaching Jewish believers among the Gentiles to abandon Moses. James proposes a solution: Paul should join four men who have taken a Nazirite vow, pay for their purification rites, and demonstrate publicly that he himself walks in observance of the law. Paul agrees and does it.

The HRM conclusion: Paul agreed to demonstrate his Torah observance. Therefore Paul kept Torah. Therefore Paul never taught against Torah.

This reading ignores three things that are directly visible in the same passage.

First: the rumour James describes was false. James says: "they have been told about you that you teach all the Jews who are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses, telling them not to circumcise their children or walk according to our customs." James presents this as a report that needs to be addressed. He does not say: we have heard that you teach Jews to abandon Moses, and we agree that this is what you are doing. He says: people have heard this. They are troubled. Let's correct the misimpression. The public demonstration is designed to show that Paul does not teach Jewish believers to abandon Moses - not to confirm that Torah observance is binding on all believers.

Second: the very next verse makes the distinction Paul himself draws. Immediately after addressing the Jewish believer situation, James says in verse 25: "But as for the Gentiles who have believed, we have sent a letter with our judgment that they should abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality." Four requirements. No mention of Torah. No mention of Sabbath, feast days, circumcision, or dietary laws beyond the four apostolic rulings. James himself - in the same breath - distinguishes between Jewish believers maintaining Jewish practice and Gentile believers who are bound by the Jerusalem Council's four requirements, not the Mosaic law. Paul's Temple demonstration is about Jewish believers and Jewish community contexts. James explicitly applies a different and far less demanding standard to Gentiles.

Third: Paul's stated position about Jewish believers is not that Torah is binding on them as a covenant obligation. Paul's position, consistent throughout his letters, is that Jewish believers are free - free to observe or not observe Mosaic practices, as long as they understand that these practices do not earn righteousness or standing before God. He is not saying Torah is obligatory for Jewish believers. He is saying that it is not required for Gentiles, and that Jewish believers who want to maintain their cultural and religious heritage within their communities are free to do so. That is a position compatible with Paul sometimes observing Torah practices in Jewish contexts. It is not compatible with the HRM claim that Torah observance is required of all believers everywhere.

What Paul Says About His Own Torah Credentials

The most devastating passage for the HRM's reading of Paul's personal practice is Philippians 3:4–9. This is Paul speaking about his own Torah resume in his own words, and what he says about it is the opposite of an endorsement.

"If anyone else thinks he has reason for 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; as to the law, a Pharisee; as to zeal, a persecutor of the church; as to righteousness under the law, blameless. But whatever gain I had, I counted as loss for the sake of Christ. Indeed, I count everything as loss because of the surpassing worth of knowing Christ Jesus my Lord. For his sake I have suffered the loss of all things and count them as rubbish, in order that I may gain Christ and be found in him, not having a righteousness of my own that comes from the law, but that which comes through faith in Christ."

Paul's Torah credentials are impeccable. Circumcised on the eighth day - the covenant sign applied at the legally specified time. Israeli lineage. Tribe of Benjamin - one of the two tribes that remained loyal to the Davidic line. Hebrew of Hebrews - a full-blooded Hebrew, not a diaspora Jew who had assimilated into Greek culture. A Pharisee - the most rigorous Torah-observance movement of the first century. Blameless as to the righteousness the law defines.

He calls all of it loss. He calls it rubbish - the Greek word is skybala, which in contemporary usage referred to excrement or refuse. He does not call it worthless in itself. He calls it worthless compared to Christ. And crucially, he identifies what he is now pursuing: not a righteousness from the law, but a righteousness from faith in Christ. These are two different righteousnesses, and Paul has abandoned one for the other.

This is not the testimony of a man who regards Torah observance as the ongoing covenant obligation of all believers. This is the testimony of a man who had Torah observance in abundance, who understood exactly what it was and what it could produce, and who concluded that what it could produce was not righteousness before God.

Galatians 2:11–14 - The Incident at Antioch

This passage is rarely cited in HRM presentations about Paul's Torah observance, and its omission is telling.

When Peter came to Antioch, he ate with Gentile believers. He shared meals with them, which meant either that the food was not prepared according to Jewish dietary law, or that Peter was treating dietary restrictions as non-binding in Gentile Christian community contexts. Then men came from James in Jerusalem. Peter withdrew from eating with the Gentiles, fearing the circumcision party. The other Jewish believers followed him into this hypocrisy. Even Barnabas was swept along.

Paul opposed Peter to his face. "When I saw that their conduct was not in step with the truth of the gospel, I said to Cephas before them all, 'If you, though a Jew, live like a Gentile and not like a Jew, how can you force the Gentiles to live like Jews?'" (Galatians 2:14).

Notice what Paul's rebuke reveals. Peter had been living like a Gentile - eating with Gentile believers, not observing Jewish food restrictions in that context. This was Paul's position: in mixed community contexts, the Jewish food laws do not govern the gathered body of Christ. When Peter withdrew under social pressure from the circumcision party, he was not returning to his covenant obligations. He was capitulating to peer pressure in a way that implicitly told Gentile believers they needed to Judaize to be fully accepted. That is what Paul called "not in step with the truth of the gospel."

The Antioch incident is one of the most important pieces of evidence in the entire Pauline corpus for understanding his position on Torah observance. It shows that in mixed Jew-Gentile community contexts, Paul did not expect Jewish Torah distinctives to govern the common life of the church. Peter's withdrawal was wrong not because it violated Torah but because it violated the gospel - the unity of Jew and Gentile in Christ without additional covenant requirements.

Romans 14–15: The Definitive Statement on Personal Practice

Romans 14–15 is Paul's most extended treatment of believers who have differing practices with respect to food and calendar observance. It is the passage that most directly addresses the situation the HRM creates - a community of believers where some observe dietary laws and Sabbath and feast days, and others do not.

Paul's handling of this situation is not what the HRM would predict if Torah were binding on all believers.

He calls the one who observes dietary restrictions "the weak" - "the one who is weak in faith" (14:1). He calls the one who eats everything and does not observe food distinctions the "strong" (15:1). He says the strong should bear with the failings of the weak. He says neither should despise the other. He says both are accepted by God. He does not say: everyone must observe the food laws because Torah is binding. He treats food law observance as a matter of personal conviction, not covenant obligation.

On calendar observance: "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." (14:5). Sabbath and feast day observance is here treated as a matter of personal conviction - each one should be fully convinced in his own mind. This is not what you write if the Sabbath is a binding covenant requirement for all believers. If Sabbath observance were obligatory, Paul would not say "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind" any more than he would say "each one should be fully convinced about whether to commit adultery." Binding obligations are not placed in the category of personal conviction.

The HRM sometimes argues that Romans 14–15 is about pagan food offered to idols, not about kosher laws, and that the calendar disputes are about pagan festivals, not about the Sabbath. But the passage does not restrict itself to pagan contexts. The language is general: one who eats only vegetables, one who esteems one day above another. And even if the food disputes are partly about idol meat, the calendar statement is broader: one person esteems one day as better than another. If Sabbath is a non-negotiable covenant requirement, Paul cannot classify it under "each one should be fully convinced in his own mind."

The Nazirite Vow - What It Proves and What It Does Not

Acts 18:18 records that Paul had his hair cut at Cenchreae because of a vow he had taken. This is generally understood as a Nazirite vow, described in Numbers 6. The HRM cites this as evidence that Paul observed the Torah's ritual requirements.

Paul took a vow. This is true. What does it prove?

It proves that Paul, as a Jewish believer, was free to observe voluntary Jewish practices when he chose to. It does not prove that he taught these practices as obligatory for Gentile believers. It does not prove that he regarded the Mosaic covenant as the governing charter for the church. It does not prove that his Torah-observant episodes are anything other than what he says in 1 Corinthians 9 - the practice of a free man who voluntarily adapts his behaviour to the context he is in.

A Jewish follower of Christ in the first century navigated an enormously complex social world. His family, his community, his synagogue relationships, his ability to reach Jewish people with the gospel - all of these were affected by whether he maintained recognisably Jewish practices. Paul's voluntary observance of certain Torah practices in Jewish contexts is entirely consistent with his stated missionary principle. It is not evidence that he taught Torah observance as a universal obligation.

Why Paul's Personal Practice Does Not Determine Universal Obligation

There is a logical fallacy embedded in the HRM argument that is worth naming directly. The argument structure is: Paul kept Torah, therefore Torah observance is required for believers. This does not follow, for a simple reason.

Personal practice and universal obligation are different categories. Paul also remained unmarried for most of his ministry (1 Corinthians 7:8). He says explicitly that he wishes all believers could be as he is - single and undistracted in service to God. But he also says explicitly that marriage is not a sin, that each person has their own gift from God, and that he is not laying down a rule. His personal practice does not create a universal obligation.

Paul also worked with his hands to support himself rather than receiving payment from the communities he served (1 Corinthians 9:12–18). He says he had the right to be supported but gave up that right voluntarily. His practice was not a universal requirement - other apostles were supported by the churches (9:5). His personal choice did not create a binding obligation.

The same logic applies to Torah observance. Paul's voluntary, contextual, missionary-motivated Torah practice in Jewish contexts does not create a universal obligation for all believers any more than his celibacy or his self-supporting work ethic creates universal obligations.

The Argument Paul's Critics Cannot Answer

Here is the test that exposes the HRM's reading of Paul's personal practice as selective and inconsistent.

If Paul's Torah observance in Acts proves that Torah observance is binding on all believers, then Paul's Torah non-observance in Gentile contexts - his eating with Gentiles, his refusal to circumcise Titus, his living "as outside the law" when with Gentiles - proves that Torah observance is not binding on all believers.

The HRM cannot have it both ways. If Paul's behaviour establishes universal norms, then his behaviour in Gentile contexts establishes that Gentiles are not under Torah. If his behaviour in Gentile contexts is just contextual and does not establish universal norms, then his behaviour in Jewish contexts is also just contextual and does not establish universal norms either.

Paul himself resolves the tension. He tells us in 1 Corinthians 9 that both behaviours - Torah observance with Jews, Torah non-observance with Gentiles - are expressions of his missionary freedom. Neither one is the universal norm. The universal norm is the gospel, which he serves by adapting his practice to his audience. "I have become all things to all people, that by all means I might save some."

What Paul Actually Taught About Torah Observance

Setting aside what the HRM says Paul taught, here is what his letters consistently say when you read them in full.

Torah observance is not required of Gentile believers. The Jerusalem Council ruled this definitively (Acts 15). Paul argued for it throughout Galatians. He treated food law and Sabbath observance as matters of personal conviction in Romans 14. He rebuked Peter for conduct that implicitly pressured Gentiles to Judaize. He refused to circumcise Titus when circumcision was demanded as a covenant requirement.

Torah observance is permitted for Jewish believers. Paul did not tell Jewish believers to abandon their heritage. He observed Jewish practices himself in Jewish contexts. He said that the one who observes one day above another and the one who esteems all days alike are both accepted by God (Romans 14:5–6).

Torah observance as the basis of righteousness before God is a denial of the gospel. This is the line Paul will not cross. You may observe Torah practices as a cultural expression of your Jewish heritage - that is freedom. You may not observe Torah practices as the means of earning righteousness or securing covenant standing before God - that is the Galatian heresy, and Paul calls it a different gospel (Galatians 1:6–9).

These three positions are entirely consistent with each other. They are also entirely inconsistent with the HRM's conclusion that Paul taught Torah observance as a universal obligation for all believers.

Conclusion

Paul kept certain Torah practices in certain contexts. This is true and documented in Acts. It is also entirely explained by what Paul himself says in 1 Corinthians 9: he was a free man who voluntarily adapted his behaviour to his missionary context, becoming as one under the law to reach those under the law.

He was not under the law. He says so himself, in the middle of the passage that explains his Torah-observant behaviour. He did not teach Torah observance as a universal obligation. He says so himself, in Galatians, in Romans 14, in Philippians 3, and in the Antioch incident where he rebuked Peter for conduct that pressured Gentiles to Judaize.

The HRM argument works only if you read the Acts episodes without 1 Corinthians 9, read Timothy's circumcision without Titus's non-circumcision, read Acts 21 without verse 25, and read Paul's Torah-observant episodes without Philippians 3:8 where he calls his Torah credentials rubbish compared to knowing Christ.

When you read everything Paul says - in full, in context, without selective quotation - his position is coherent and consistent. He was free. He used his freedom strategically in service of the gospel. He never confused freedom with obligation. And he never taught that the Mosaic covenant's specific requirements were binding on Gentile believers in Christ.

The man who wrote "I am not under the law" in the middle of explaining why he sometimes observed Torah practices is not the man the HRM is looking for.

To the Jews I became as a Jew, in order to win Jews. To those under the law I became as one under the law - though I myself am not under the law - that I might win those under the law. - 1 Corinthians 9:20