john

Don said:

I agree that “the law” can refer to many things.  My point was that “the law says” refers to the oral torah of the Pharisees.  This was the standard convention of the 1st century to refer to it.  One needs to read Paul with 1st century context.

I say:

Again you are making a declarative statement that is false.

Again “The Law” only refers to the Oral Law when that statement is used in Classical Rabbinical literature and Rabbinical Talmudic law which is based on the Mishna. And the Mishna is based on the Oral Law of the Pharisee’s

So when you say the “standard convention of the 1st Century” you are saying the Standard 1st century Pharisaical Oral Law standard and context.

And hence you wrongly assume that all 1st century standard and context was via the Pharisaical Oral Law, which it was not!

Today It is only a specific group of people who have chosen to recast and reinterpret the New Testament via 1st century Pharisaical Oral Law and Traditions, and further they are teaching people this as well.

And it is a false assumption. both Jesus Christ and the Apostle Paul clearly rejected the Pharisee’s oral law! to them, in the 1st century,  “The Law” was the written old Testament.

And when the Apostle Paul is directly addressing someone with instructions as he is clearly doing in the passage in question he is referring to the Written law not the Pharisee’s Oral Law which he rejected.