Discussion Jumpstarter
Study leader reference - not a definitive answer
Question 4
The speaker accuses translators of “spiritual dishonesty” for not capitalizing “Law” (Mosaic Law) in Romans, saying it smuggles in Luther’s “law with a small l” reading; what specific doctrines or conclusions become easier to defend when “Law” is flattened into “any law,” and what becomes harder to defend?
Another way to ask: The speaker says translators should capitalize “Law” in Romans so people don’t read it as “any law.” What beliefs become easier to argue when “Law” means any rule, and what beliefs become harder?
Discussion Jumpstarter
Direct Answer
Based on the speaker’s argument, flattening “Law” into “any law” makes it easier to defend Luther’s claim that Paul rejects all forms of law/commandments for Christians, not just the Mosaic system. It becomes harder to defend Paul’s emphasis that he is primarily discussing the Mosaic Law and the Jew–Gentile question, and harder to see continuity with Jesus’ expectation of practiced obedience.
- He distinguishes: “Law with a capital…Mosaic law. Law with a small L could be anything.”
- He blames a theological agenda: “Luther argued…Paul…is talking about any kind of law…we're not under law.”
- He says translators “accommodate Luther” by “refusing to capitalize law, even when the context shows…Mosaic law.”
- He calls the result confusing and misleading: “Romans is hard enough…what is that supposed to mean?” and “somebody…might not even know…Paul primarily talks about the Mosaic law throughout Romans.”
- He notes inconsistency: in Gospels “law and the prophets” gets caps, but in epistles “they just refuse to capitalize law no matter what.”
- He ties it to bigger doctrinal outcomes: the “small l” approach supports “Oh, yeah, Paul is saying…works, law, we don't have that…It's not what he's talking about.”