Long Island Abundant Life Church長島豐盛生命教會
  • Home
    • About Us 關於教會 >
      • Mission Statement - 使命宣言
      • Statement of Faith - 信仰立場
      • Biblical Marriage - 合乎聖經的婚姻
      • Church Leadership - 教會同工
      • Doc, membership - 文件, 會員
      • Contact Us - 聯絡我們
      • Directions - 路線圖
      • Ministry opening - English Pastor
  • Chinese Ministry 華語事工
    • 崇拜
    • 講道集 >
      • 主日信息
      • 特會 / 講座
    • 主日學
    • 門訓小組 >
      • 門訓小組介紹
    • 團契
    • 讀經
  • English Ministry 英文事工
  • Youth 少年事工
    • Worship
    • Sunday School
    • Youth Fellowship
    • Events
    • Our Vision
    • Connect with Us
    • Parent Resources
    • Youth Prayer Requests
  • Children's Ministry 兒童事工
    • Children's Worship - 兒童崇拜 >
      • Children's Songs - 歌曲
      • Junior Worship, Archive - 學習內容
      • Junior Worship, Current - 學習內容
      • Preschool Worship, Archive - 幼兒崇拜
    • Sunday School - 主日學 >
      • Preschool - 低年級
      • Middlers, Current - 高年級
      • Elementary, Archive - 高年級
    • VBS-特别暑期聖經班 >
      • EVENTS- 特別活動
    • Nursery - 幼兒照顧
    • Resources - 資源
  • Missions/Evangelism 宣教/佈道
    • *Global Missions 全球宣教
    • *Missions Ministry 宣教事工
  • Chinese School 中文學校
  • Church Activities / News / Calendar 教會活動 / 消息 / 行事曆
    • 教牧心聲Pastoral & Coworkers' Sharing
    • 教會事工Church Ministry
    • Special/urgent 特別/緊急
    • Calendar 教會行事曆
    • Bulletin 週報
    • Archive 檔案 >
      • Pray for Hindus 2018 為印度人禱告
      • Seek God 2019 尋求神
      • Misc. 其他
  • Chinese Student Ministry 学生事工
    • Campus Ministry 校园事工
    • CSF 衣
    • CSF 食
    • CSF 住
    • CSF 行
  • Links 资源鏈接

1 Peter 2:1–12

11/29/2012

 
Click here to read today's passage on Bible Gateway.

What is Spiritual Milk?

Disclaimer:  Today's post gets far more technical than usual.  In the course of reading for today's post, I had to consult a number of resources to figure out this issue.  I don't normally get so technical, but I wanted to give you a glimpse into how to deal with a more advanced issue in Bible study, in this case having to do with vocabulary.  Proceed ready to think and do your best to follow.

in today's reading, 1 Peter 2:2 is an interesting verse.  Peter here exhorts the recipients to crave "pure spiritual milk".  But what is that milk?  As Christians ourselves, we should be seeking the same thing that Peter exhorts them to seek, but what does he mean here?  Fellowship? God's Word? Prayer?  There are a number of options.  First things first however - Peter is using "milk" in a different way than we've seen in other places in the NT.  The other places we've seen it have been primarily in a negative sense (that people need to move past milk to solid food), but you don't really get that sense here:

"The reference to “milk” (gala) in 1 Cor 3:1–3 and Heb 5:11–14 occurs in contexts where believers are indicted for spiritual immaturity, but we must beware of imposing those contexts on [Peter's] usage." [1]

So we've established that it's not being used in a negative way, but we still are no closer to figuring out what it actually is.  As I've been researching and looking through material on this topic, it's actually proven very difficult to nail down.  The biggest reason for this is the modifier, "spiritual".  The word used for "spiritual" (logikos) here is very ususual - t occurs only here and in Romans 12:1: "I appeal to you therefore, brothers, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God, which is your spiritual worship."  The context there doesn't offer to much help in figuring out our verse, so I consulted some other Bible versions.

A lot of people view the "spiritual milk" to be God's Word, most likely because of the KJV translation of this verse:

"As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby..."

This version is interesting because the adjective here is "sincere" rather than "spiritual", with an added phrase "of the word" which is inferred because it doesn't actually occur in the Greek text.  The KJV translators were highly interpretive in their translation of this, adding words to clarify what they thought it meant rather than attempting to preserve the original wording.  Other versions mostly use "spiritual milk" here, which still gets us no closer to really understanding.

Commentaries are divided here, most of them uncharacteristically not going very deep into the issue:

""Pure spiritual milk” refers to the very things that nourish the Christian community in its growth: knowledge of God, prayer, instruction in the gospel, faithful obedience, and hearing God’s preached word." [2]

This is a good thought that I mostly agree with, but with no support for the interpretation.  Two other commentaries take the approach of the KJV and peg it as the Bible:

"The Greek word translated “spiritual” is logikos; it means “logical, reasonable, and spiritual.” As such, it probably points to the Word of God, which provides spiritual life to those who partake of it." [3]

Also, with more explanation:

"The word logikos is translated by the NIV and understood by many to mean “spiritual.” Usually, however, in Greek literature the term refers to that which is rational or reasonable. It is not equated with the term “spiritual,” even though it overlaps with it (cf. T. Levi 3:6; Philo, Spec. Laws 1.16; Epictetus, Discourses 1.16). Peter probably opted for the term to clarify that the milk he had in view was the word of God. The “word” (logos), after all, was the means by which God begot believers. God’s “word” (rhēma) abides forever, and that very word is identified as the gospel preached to the Petrine believers (1:25). Hence, Peter used logikos to define milk here, so that the readers will understand that the milk by which they grow is nothing other than the word of God. The means by which God sanctifies believers is through the mind, through the continued proclamation of the word.  Spiritual growth is not primarily mystical but rational, and rational in the sense that it is informed and sustained by God’s word." [4] (emphasis mine)

This is no doubt the thinking behind the KJV's translation of this verse and other interpretations that take it to be the word of God, but I have some big problems with the logic used here.  Schreiner admits that the normal (non-New Testament) use of the word in Greek was "rational or reasonable".  Consulting Greek dictionaries shows this to be true (titles are acronyms):

BDAG: thoughtful (this is a NT and early Christian Greek dictionary)
LSJ: for speaking, expressed in speech (classical Greek dictionary)
Louw-Nida: true to real nature (dictionary focused on understanding the senses and similarities/differences in NT Greek words)

The important lesson?  None of them define this word as "spiritual" even though most translations do.  Also, none of them give the sense of "Word of God" unless you count "speech" as "words".  So why does he write this?  Schreiner here is using the root of the word "logikos", which is "lego" (to speak) to bridge to another word with the same root, "logos" (word).  He is suggesting that using the word meaning "true to real nature/rational" here is supposed to bring to mind "the Word of God" to the readers.  I have a real problem with this thinking.  It is what is usually called "The Root Fallacy" in word studies.  D.A. Carson explains with and English example of the danger of determining word meaning through roots:

"All of this is linguistic nonsense. We might have guessed as much if we were more acquainted with the etymology of English words. Anthony C. Thiselton offers by way of example our word nice, which comes from the Latin nescius, meaning “ignorant.” Our “good–bye” is a contraction for Anglo–Saxon “God be with you.” Now it may be possible to trace out diachronically just how nescius generated “nice”; it is certainly easy to imagine how “God be with you” came to be contracted to “good–bye.” But I know of no one today who in saying such and such a person is “nice” believes that he or she has in some measure labeled that person ignorant because the “root meaning” or “hidden meaning” or “literal meaning” of “nice” is “ignorant.”" [5]

It would appear that many have fallen prey to this error in linguistic logic.

So know that we know what it DOESN'T mean, what DOES it actually mean.  If it's not specifically "the word of God", then what is the meaning of "spiritual" here?

Louw-Nida suggest that "true, unadulterated milk" is more accurate:
"...pertaining to being genuine, in the sense of being true to the real and essential nature of something—‘rational, genuine, true... ‘as newborn babes you drank the true, unadulterated milk’ 1 Pe 2:2. Since in 1 Pe 2:2 the context is figurative, some translators have preferred to render λογικός as ‘spiritual,’ so as to make the reference not literal but figurative." [6] (emphasis mine)

The sense here is in the word is "rational" being used in a spiritual sense in the sense of being "true".  This makes sense if this verse is contrasting the previous one.  They are to put away the old ways of malice, deceit, hypocrisy, envy, and slander and desire the things that are true and holy.  They ways of the world are the ways of the flesh, but they believers have come to know that which is truly "rational" because it is True (with capital T) in the deepest sense.  To desire pure "spiritual/true" milk is to desire that which nurtures your soul and brings growth and strength, just a physical milk does.  The word of God does that, but as I said before, I don't think that this passage is limited to simply the word of God.  It is ALL of the things that grow us up, as Scot McKnight mentioned above:

""Pure spiritual milk” refers to the very things that nourish the Christian community in its growth: knowledge of God, prayer, instruction in the gospel, faithful obedience, and hearing God’s preached word."[7]

In the end, I find that I totally agree with his explanation after working through what this phrase both does and does not mean.  I wish he'd done some more detailed explaining, but it is a little complex, isn't it?

If you made it all the way to the bottom:  Questions?  Comments? Confusion?

[1] Thomas R. Schreiner, vol. 37, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, The New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman Publishers, 2003), 99.
[2] Scot McKnight, 1 Peter, The NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan Publishing House, 1996), 104.
[3] Bruce B. Barton, 1 Peter, 2 Peter, Jude, Life Application Bible Commentary (Wheaton, IL: Tyndale House Pub., 1995), 50-51.
[4] Schreiner, 100.
[5] D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Carlisle, U.K.; Grand Rapids, MI: Paternoster; Baker Books, 1996), 28.
[6] Johannes P. Louw and Eugene Albert Nida, vol. 1, Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament: Based on Semantic Domains, electronic ed. of the 2nd edition. (New York: United Bible Societies, 1996), 674.

[7] McKnight, 104.
Kevin Kuo
11/29/2012 02:47:23 pm

After reading pastor Greg's post it reminded me of the comparison of true milk and fake milk in the literal sense. There was a vegan family who insisted their new infant had to observe vegan so they tried to use juice and soy milk to feed the child after a few months their child died of malnutrition despite several warnings from their doctor that the child needed real formula or breast milk. It just goes to show that Gods plan is perfect period, you might try some new age misguided belief which would lead to a spiritual death like a physical one for a baby denied "real" milk. It torments me to know how many people are so blinded to the truth and how so many even seek open rebellion against it. I lament for them.

greg
11/30/2012 03:10:07 am

I think you're really bringing out the emphasis on "true" milk. There is a lot of stuff both outside of Christianity and within that is in essence "fake" milk. People look for pleasant and quick solutions, but the Bible is relentless about emphasizing the true milk: worship, the Word, meeting with other believers, prayer, etc.

Andrei
11/29/2012 04:07:16 pm

Wow... that was interesting. Thanks for sorting through all that linguistic alfredo for us; must have been a lot of work. Confusing but I think I got the jist of it...

Just had a few questions... Would it be accurate to say that the KJV version got it wrong by adding the part about 'milk of the word'? Also, is the purpose of scrutinizing the text and everything in cases like these to make sure that we're understanding God's Word as accurately as possible?

Kevin Kuo
11/30/2012 12:07:06 am

To my understanding the KJV was written to follow a certain meter like Shakespearean plays. So there are parts where they did add inferred material to fit the meter but also to attempt to bring greater understanding of the text to the general reader. One thing we have to keep in mind is that the average believer today is far better educated than the believers when the KJV was created in the early 1600. In addition the internet allows us the ability to access a wealth of information even the most erudite person of the 1600 could not come close to that level of knowledge. Pastor Greg can set up this blog for us to talk about all the nuances and pick apart scripture in far greater detail than the people of the 1600s. So is the KJV bad? I personally do not think so. But it doesn't mean that I'd don't have my problems with it. I find that comparing versions is very helpful because no matter what English version you are using you are still reading in translation. I believe this level of scrutiny is important as a lesson on how to study the Bible fully, however if one commits himself to in depth study of the Bible yet bears no fruit in helping others then it is just purely an academic exercise.

greg
11/30/2012 03:33:58 am

What you said about the KJV is not untrue, but I would add that every translation to a certain extent needs to add inferred material for sentence structure and grammar to make sense in English. The NASB is unique in that it always puts inferred words and phrases in italics so you can tell when this happens. I encourage those serious about Bible study to choose a translation like ESV or NASB for STUDY because the translation attempts to keep wording as much as possible and interpretation/inferred ideas to a minimum.

You're right (as I wrote in response to Andrei above) about our level of knowledge. We have much more ability to understand the languages and analyze them than people did then.

In further regards to the KJV, I would never say it's a BAD translation, but there are some issues to it. It's based upon a different (and less reliable for a number of reasons) set of manuscripts called the Textus Receptus (modern used Alexandrian aka Majority Text manuscripts), meaning there is sometimes a lot of variance in wording in the original languages vs. what NIV and ESV use. I checked and in this case the wording is in fact the same in the original text, so this is definitely an interpretive choice, not a textual difference. In addition to the textual differences, the KJV is often very misunderstood due to changes in the English language. I have an article with a number of nearly always misunderstood words in reading the KJV due to changes in English. The most famous being "mansion", which in Elizabethan English means, "small private room", not "huge estate house" as we take it. It is more poetic, but for understanding the Bible well and studying it I would for the most part stay away from the KJV.

Your comments about academic exercise are well taken. If this doesn't move you to actually seek out spiritual milk, it's a fail. This is a HUGE struggle I think for a lot of pastors, Bible professors, and seminarians. Lots of learning, little action. This is definitely a matter for prayer.

greg
11/30/2012 03:21:39 am

KJV: I can't say for sure why they made that interpretive decision, but it seems like the reasoning was probably the same as Schreiner's. If that's the case, I do believe it's an error of linguistic logic. That's probably why none of the other translations have that. The KVJ is older and based on different manuscripts, and the fact is that in the past few years due to computers we've definitely increased our understanding and analysis of ancient texts in a way that those translators didn't have available. I think that linguistically it's misguided, but conceptually it's not wrong - just incomplete. It seems that the "milk" includes the Word of God, but is not limited to it - there are other things to do and remember.

Second question: In short, yes. The whole thing started by just asking a question. It's my belief that good Bible study starts with asking good questions. It was a valid one: If we're to desire pure spiritual milk, what is that milk? How can we seek it if we don't know what it is? In searching for the answer, I found that some people were making conclusions that weren't really supported by the text/words, so I sought to get to the bottom of it. There was more to the process than I wrote that got even more technical, but wouldn't have been understandable without A LOT of explanation. I don't expect that most people would go to the lengths I did in normal Bible study - I usually don't have to. I just wanted to give you a glimpse into some of what pastors/translators/theologians do and deal with in seeking to understand and explain a text.

If this were a sermon or even a Sunday School lesson, I would NEVER go into this much detail. The work would still be there, but I would just say "We need to be seeking out fellowship, worship, prayer, etc." You'd see the results of the study without all the process. The blog allows for a slightly different approach. I usually try to keep it less intense, but I thought I give you something a little more challenging today.

It IS vital that we're understanding the Word accurately, but I realized that most people aren't equipped to do this level of study - that's why God has given the Church teachers and shepherds: to teach and equip and give understanding for the people to go out to the world and minister in God's name.

Andrei
11/30/2012 06:32:08 pm

Thanks for the info Kevin and Greg. Mad interesting...


Comments are closed.

    RSS Feed

    Archives

    December 2012
    November 2012
    October 2012
    September 2012
    August 2012
    July 2012
    June 2012
    May 2012
    April 2012
    March 2012

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.