QSTPS WITH CHATGPT : WHERE APOSTLE / BISHOP PAUL OF TARSUS SAYS THE LAW OR TORAH IS ABOLISHED

CHATGPT ANSWER

Paul does not use the exact sentence “the Torah is abolished.” The passages most often cited as teaching that the Law/Torah has been set aside, fulfilled, or is no longer binding in the same way are these:

Passage What Paul says Why it is cited

Romans 6:14 “You are not under law but under grace.” Often interpreted as Christians no longer being under Torah's jurisdiction.

Romans 7:4 “You also have died to the law through the body of Christ.” Paul describes believers as having died to the Law.

Romans 7:6 “We have been released from the law.” One of the clearest passages used for the claim.

Romans 10:4 “Christ is the end of the law…” Frequently interpreted as Christ bringing Torah's role to an end; telos can also mean “goal” or “culmination.”

Galatians 2:19 “Through the law I died to the law.” Paul describes a changed relationship to Torah through Messiah.

Galatians 3:23–25 The Law was a “guardian” until Messiah came; “now that faith has come, we are no longer under a guardian.” Used to argue that Torah's guardian function has ended.

Galatians 5:18 “If you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.” Explicitly contrasts Spirit-led life with being “under the law.”

Galatians 5:2–3 Regarding circumcision, accepting it obligates one to keep the whole Law. Often cited in discussions of whether Torah observance remains obligatory for believers.

Galatians 5:4 Those seeking justification through the Law are “severed from Christ.” Paul rejects Torah-observance as the basis for justification.

Ephesians 2:15 Christ has “abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.” This is probably the strongest Pauline text for the word “abolished.”

Colossians 2:14 Christ “canceled the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands.” Often interpreted as cancellation of Torah's legal demands, although the exact meaning is disputed.

Colossians 2:16–17 “Let no one pass judgment on you” concerning food, drink, festivals, new moons or Sabbaths. Frequently cited against obligatory observance of these Torah practices.

2 Corinthians 3:7–11 The old covenant is described as a ministry that is “fading away,” while the new covenant is described as surpassing it in glory. Used to argue for the supersession of the old covenant arrangement.

Hebrews 7:12 “When there is a change in the priesthood, there is necessarily a change in the law as well.” Hebrews is traditionally attributed to Paul in some older traditions, but modern scholarship generally does not consider Paul its author.

Hebrews 8:13 “In speaking of a new covenant, he makes the first one obsolete.” Very strong “obsolete” language, but again Hebrews is not generally regarded as Paul's letter.

The two strongest texts

If your question is specifically “Where does the New Testament actually use language like abolished/obsolete concerning the Law?”, the two most striking are:

Ephesians 2:15

> Christ “abolished the law of commandments expressed in ordinances.”

Hebrews 8:13

> “He makes the first one obsolete.”

But there is an important distinction: Ephesians is Pauline; Hebrews almost certainly is not Paul's writing.

And there is a major counter-evidence in Paul

Paul also explicitly says things that make a simple “Paul abolished Torah” interpretation difficult:

Romans 3:31 — “Do we then overthrow the law by this faith? By no means! On the contrary, we uphold the law.”

Romans 7:12 — “The law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.”

Romans 7:14 — “The law is spiritual.”

Romans 8:4 — the righteous requirement of the Law is fulfilled in those walking according to the Spirit.

1 Corinthians 7:19 — “Keeping the commandments of God” is what counts.

Romans 9:4 — Paul speaks positively of Israel's covenantal privileges, including “the giving of the law.”

Acts 21:20–24 — Paul is presented as denying accusations that he teaches Jews to abandon Moses.

So the scholarly dispute is not simply “Did Paul ever say anything negative about Torah?” He clearly did in certain contexts. The harder question is:

Did Paul mean that Torah itself was abolished for Jewish believers, or that believers were no longer under Torah as a means of justification/covenant status, particularly Gentile believers?

That distinction is at the heart of the modern “Paul within Judaism” debate.