Search

This book is placed within broader scholarship's trajectory by explaining that νόμος in Gal 6:2 refers to'principle,'unwritten law, rather than written law such as the Mosaic law and another law. Because νόμος diachronically and synchronically had various meanings in history, the context in which it is found is significant. Given the context of Galatians, while Paul negatively depicts νόμος as the written Mosaic law throughout the letter, he positively uses it as a device for striking the ears of the Galatians in the verse. Remarkably, 6:2 is in 5:13--6:10 called paraenesis, namely, exhortations that they should perform with the Christian principle of life made by the Spirit. Being led by the Spirit is the sine qua non for believers in Christ. All indications surrounding 6:2 show that the phrase, ὁ νόμος τοῦ Χριστοῦ in 6:2 means'the principle created by Christ,'that is,'keeping in step with the Spirit.'This principle results from the new era inaugurated by the crucified and risen Christ. In 6:2 Paul exhorts the people of the new era to conform to the new era's principle created by Christ.

In John 6:51-59, John describes the Eucharist of Jesus by modeling Dionysus. In particular, John 6:53,'unless you eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink his blood, you have no life in you'is one of the most difficult verses found anywhere in the Bible. To explain this, a new approach is needed when one consistently contemplates why John uses flesh (σάρξ) instead of body (σῶμα), and'This is my flesh', instead of'This is my body.'The Dionysiac ritual of eating and tearing raw flesh shows cannibalistic elements. Unlike other negative descriptions of cannibalism in ancient literature, Dionysus is described as both an eater and a giver of raw flesh. By reevaluating the negative term of cannibalism, John positively applies this Dionysiac cannibalism to the Eucharistic words in 6:51-59. Because emphatically and slightly ironically, scholars'arguments show that John 6 is still a'hard teaching'of Jesus, Jesus'hard saying (6:60) is a consequence of this cannibalistic language and the ambiguous features of Dionysus.