by Island Man 33 Replies latest watchtower bible
The word "chiasm" comes from the Greek letter Chi (X). The "X" in Xmas represents the Greek letter "Chi".
Doug
Now THAT is a cool trivia point! I always thought it was used by people not wanting to use "Christ" because they didn't believe in the holiday....thanks!
Just to be clear, the "X" in "Xmas" is "chi" because it's short for "Christos". So, as Doug said, it's an abbreviation of "Christmas", not a censorship thereof.
Here is something else I've noticed about that passage in Romans 14. Verse 6 says:
The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. * Also, the one who eats, eats to Jehovah, * for he gives thanks to God; + and the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, * and yet gives thanks to God.
Do you notice something strange and unnatural about the wording? Don't these phrases seem unnatural: "The one who eats to Jehovah . . . gives thanks to God"? "The one who . . . does not eat to Jehovah, and yet gives thanks to God"?
If the kyrios in verse 6 is Jehovah then that means the writer is clumisily and unecessarily using two different proper nouns to refer to the same person, within the same sentence! If the kyrios really is Jehovah, then instead of the unwiedlly phrases I quoted above, it would seem more natural for the writer to have written verse 6 as follows:
The one who observes the day observes it to Jehovah. * Also, the one who eats, eats to Jehovah, * for he thanks him; + and the one who does not eat does not eat to Jehovah, * and yet he thanks him.
If kyrios truly refers to Jehovah then having said kyrios the writer does not need to keep using another proper noun - God - to refer to the same person. It would be more natural for him to simplify his expression using the pronoun him. What kind of person speaks about someone in a paragraph referring to them multiple times by different proper nouns and omitting to use pronouns? People don't speak like that. That's not natural speech.
So the fact that Romans 14:6 is worded in this way with the use of two different proper nouns, suggests that the author had two persons in mind. Logically, then, the kyrios in verse 6 seems to actually be a referrence to christ.
The expression 'eating to the Lord' may be another way of saying 'eating in the name of the Lord'. The one who eats offers thanks to God for the food in Jesus' name. Thus by eating to the Lord (or in the name of the Lord) he gives thanks to God. And the one who does not eat does not eat to the Lord (or in Jesus name) and yet he still gives thanks to God in prayer [for other things.]
I've been wondering about that verse too. I was just reading it again last night. I'm not so sure that they were saying a prayer in the way we were taught as Witnesses, where we speak to God "in Jesus' name". I think it's likely that Paul was referring to a customary practice with a set expression "to give thanks to God" ("eucharistei to Theo"), which is based on the word "eucharisteo". If you look at how the word is used post-gospels, it's usually with the word "Theos" attached. The typical rendering of this verse is:
The one who observes the day, observes it in honor of the Lord. The one who eats, eats in honor of the Lord, since he gives thanks to God, while the one who abstains, abstains in honor of the Lord and gives thanks to God. (ESV)
I think what Paul is doing here is telling us that everything goes back to Jesus now. "The day" here, according to commentators, is either the Jewish festival days, or maybe even the regular weekly sabbath, so Paul is saying that a Christian doesn't need to 'put one day above another' (14:5) if their conscience is at ease. However, if he does still observe the sabbath or a festival day, it's in honor of Jesus (now that he has replaced the old Law). Paul is then just building on this point when he says that giving the customary thanks to God before eating also is done in honor of the Lord [Jesus].
Also, since Paul goes on to conflate Jesus and God in 14:8, 9, there isn't necessarily a clear distinction in vs. 5 between Jesus and God, so we should avoid thinking in the binary terms of a non-Trinitarian and consider that maybe Paul meant that thanking God was literally thanking Jesus too.
I would not claim to be a scholar but I have to say, after checking Interlinear Bibles and concordances that the O/P's thoughts on the verse seem much more reasonable than than the NWT rendering.
