1 This approach was espoused by a number of interpreters within an earlier generation of scholarship (e.g., Charles Bigg, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistles of St. Peter and St. Jude [2nd ed.; ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902] 174–75), and it has been advocated by some modern commentators as well (e.g., Donald G. Miller, On This Rock: A Commentary on First Peter [PTMS 34; Allison Park, PA: Pickwick, 1993] 306–307; Karen H. Jobes, 1 Peter [BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2005] 282). One of the most recent defenses of this view can be found in the work of Benno A. Zuiddam, who has published various studies on the meaning of λόγια and its practical application for biblical scholarship (see Benno A. Zuiddam et al., “Λόγιον in Biblical Literature and Its Implications for Christian Scholarship,” Acta Patristica et Byzantina 19 [2008] 379–94, at 387; Benno A. Zuiddam, “Oracles of God: A Comparative Study of Apostolic Christianity and Its Greco-Roman World” [PhD diss., North-West University, 2008] esp. 163–76; idem, “Die Woord as maatstaf: die implikasie van Godspraak in 1 Petrus 4:11,” NGTT 55 [2014] 489–508, at 501–6).

2 This has been the most popular view in recent scholarship. See, e.g., Duane F. Watson, First Peter (Paideia; Grand Rapids: Baker, 2012) 104; Martin Vahrenhorst, Der erste Brief der Petrus (Theologischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 19; Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 2016) 177; et al.

3 Over the years, there have been a handful of scholars who have proposed that some type of correspondence might be in view (e.g., J. N. D. Kelly, A Commentary on the Epistles of Peter and of Jude [HNTC; New York: Harper & Row, 1969] 180; Karl H. Schelkle, Die Petrusbriefe. Der Judasbrief [6th ed.; HThKNT 13/2; Freiburg: Herder, 1988] 120). No one has provided a defense of this theory, however.

4 See, e.g., J. Ramsey Michaels, 1 Peter (WBC 49; Waco, TX: Word, 1988) 250. In this regard, opponents argue that the absence of the article indicates that the phrase should be understood as indefinite (thus, “λόγια of God,” rather than “the λόγια of God”). Elsewhere, however, this same construction (with an anarthrous λόγια θεοῦ) is employed to communicate a definite idea (see Num 24:4, 16 LXX). Such a usage is consistent with Apollonius’s Corollary, which states that when both nouns in a genitive phrase are anarthrous, they normally share the same semantic force (see Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996] 250–52). In this case, since θεοῦ is definite, λόγια could be as well. It would be a mistake, however, to assume that since an anarthrous form can perform a definite function, it should be understood as definite in this particular instance (as argued by Zuiddam, “Oracles of God,” 168). Ultimately, context must be the determining factor.

5 Elsewhere, I have argued that 1 Peter is a pseudonymous composition written between 70 and 95 CE (see Travis B. Williams, Persecution in 1 Peter: Differentiating and Contextualizing Early Christian Suffering [NovTSup145; Leiden: Brill, 2012] 22–34).

6 See LSJ 1056; cf. BDAG 598. For an introduction to ancient oracles more generally, see W. Ruge, “Orakel,” in Paulys Realencyclopädie der classischen Altertumswissenschaft (ed. Georg Wissowa and Wilhelm Kroll; vol. 18/4; Stuttgart: Alfred Druckenmüller, 1939) 829–66; Veit Rosenberger, “Oracles,” in Brill’s New Pauly: Encyclopedia of the Ancient World, vol. 10, Obl–Phe (ed. Hubert Cancik and Helmuth Schneider; Leiden: Brill, 2007) 183–87.

7 Cf. Herodotus, Hist. 1.64; Polybius, Hist. 3.112.8; Strabo, Geogr. 17.1.17; Plutarch, Rom. 14.1.

8 E.g., Strabo, Geogr. 1.3.7; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.6; Diodorus Siculus, Hist. 2.26.9.

9 For examples, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 19.2.1; Strabo, Geogr. 3.5.5; Pausanias, Descr. 3.16.10; Athenaeus, Deipn. 6.79 (Kaibel).

10 For examples of this phrase, see Epimenides, Testimonia frag. 1.53; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 4.65.3; 5.54.4; Polybius, Hist. 8.28.7; Strabo, Geogr. 6.1.5; 13.1.53; 14.1.27; 16.4.19; Plutarch, Thes. 27.2; 32.5; Arist. 9.2; Ant. 34.1; Diogenes Laertius, Vitae 1.115; Pausanias, Descr. 1.44.9.

11 See, e.g., Pausanias, Descr. 2.20.10; Polyaenus, Strategemata 1.8.1; Arrian, Anab. 7.16.5; Plutarch, Lys. 22.5-6; Nic. 13.1; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.7.

12 On the delivery of a λόγιον by a prophet/soothsayer, see Plutarch, Aris. 9.2; Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 7.9. On the anticipated fulfillment of oracles, see Aristophanes, Vesp. 800; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 4.73.6; Pausanias, Descr. 2.7.1.

13 For examples of the enigmatic form of oracles, see Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.24.1; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.7. For examples of misunderstanding, see Strabo, Geogr. 6.1.5; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 16.91.3; Plutarch, Pel. 20.7; Pausanias, Descr. 3.11.6.

14 Throughout classical literature, references are made to ancient λόγια (e.g., Heraclides Ponticus, Fragmenta 46b.8; Euripides, Heracl. 405; Polybius, Hist. 8.28.7; Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 14.56.5; 15.49.2; 15.54.1; Plutarch, Cam. 4.1; Nic. 13.1; Pseudo-Apollodorus, Bibliotheca 3.212.4). The continued existence of these oracles from antiquity obviously requires some medium of preservation. In some cases, statements are made about oracles being remembered (e.g., Herodotus, Hist. 8.141; Plutarch, Thes. 26.4), indicating that some oracles were preserved through oral transmission. In other instances, however, it would have only been natural to preserve them in writing.

15 For examples of λόγιον connected with the genitive modifiers θεοῦ or θεῶν, see, e.g., Aelius Aristides, Or. 50 (Jebb p. 412); Polyaenus, Strategemata 8.43.1; Xenophon of Ephesus, Ephesian Tale 1.7; Flavius Claudius Julianus, εἰσ τὴν μητέρα τῶν θεῶν 18.30; Damascius, De principiis 1.86.10.

16 The LXX uses a few different variations of this phrase: λόγια θεοῦ (Num 24:4, 16; Ps 106[107]:11); τὰ λόγια κνρίον (Ps 11[12]:7[6]; 17[18]:31[30]; 104[105]:19); τὸ λόγιον κνρίον τοῦ θεοῦ (Isa 28:13); and τὸ λόγιον τοῦ ἁγίον Iσραηλ (Isa 5:24). The term λόγιον is also used in second-person speech directed toward YHWH (τὸ λόγιόν/τὰ λόγιά σον: Deut 33:9; Ps 118[119]:11, 38, 41, 50, 58, 67, 76, 82, 103, 116, 133, 140, 148, 158, 162, 169–70, 172; 137[138]:2; Wis 16:11; cf. Ps 118[119]:123 [τὸ λόγιον τῆσ δικαιοσύνησ σον]), as well as third-person references (Ps 147:4 [Eng. 147:15]: τὸ λόγιον αὐτοῦ; Isa 30:27: τὸ λόγιον τῶν χειλέων αὐτοῦ; cf. Isa 30:27: τὸ λόγιον ὀργῆσ).

17 The one instance is found in Ps 18[19]:15[14], a passage that runs contrary to the claim of Zuiddam et al. that “while the author of λόγοσ could be human or divine, λόγιον was always produced in the heavenlies” (“Λόγιον in Biblical Literature,” 381). Aside from the example in Ps 18[19]:15[14], there are also a few other occurrences in Hellenistic literature where the term is used to describe human speech. In both cases, it is connected with someone possessing extraordinary prophetic abilities (cf. T.Benj. 9.1 (Cod. Grae. 731) [oracles of Enoch]; Philostratus, Vit. Apoll. 4.24 [oracle of Apollonius]; Nicolaus, Frags. 68, line 99 [oracles of Zoroaster]).

18 Cf. T. W. Manson, “Some Reflections on Apocalyptic,” in Aux sources de la tradition chrétienne. Mélanges offertes à M. Maurice Goguel à l’occasion de son soixante-dixième anniversaire (ed. Philippe H. Menoud and Oscar Cullmann; Bibliothèque théologique; Neuchatel: Delachaux & Niestlé, 1950) 139–45, at 143, who divides the LXX uses into four primary meanings: a) oracular communications of God to man either directly or through a prophet; b) divine commandments; c) divine promises; and d) human utterance in worship.

19 For specific directives, see Num 24:4, 16. For covenantal commands, see Deut 33:9; Ps 118[119]:11.

20 On the specific pleas for God to act “according to (his) λόγιόν,” see Ps 118[119]:41[38], 58, 76, 116, 133, 169–70. On the praise of assurance that God will act upon his promises, see Ps 17[18]:31[30]; 104[105]:19.

21 Cf. Philo, Praem. 1: “It so happens that there are three forms of the oracles (λογίων) which were delivered through the prophet Moses: one third relate to the creation of the world, another third are historical, and a final third are legislative.” This three-fold division appears to reflect the content of the Torah, not necessarily the Torah as a collection of sacred books. Elsewhere, Philo describes specific passages from the Torah as individual λόγιον (see Gig. 49 [Deut 5:31]; Fug. 60 [Gen 4:15]; Congr. 134 [Deut 10:9]).

22 The reference is found in 1 Clem. 53.1: “For you know, and know well, the sacred writings (τὰσ ἱερὰσ γραφάσ), beloved, and you examine the oracles of God (τὰ λόγια τοῦ θεοῦ); therefore, we write these things as a reminder.”

23 Aside from the occurrence in 1 Pet 4:11a, λόγιον appears three other times in the New Testament (Acts 7:38; Rom 3:2; Heb 5:12). Space does not permit me to address these passages directly, but I would contend that none of them provide any indication that written documents—or, even more specifically, a defined collection of written documents—are in view.

24 While this use of λόγια became common in Christian writings from the 2nd cent. onward, it is unnecessary to trace its development beyond the time of 1 Peter. For a full survey of the way the term was used in early Christian literature, see John Donovan, The Logia in Ancient and Recent Literature (Cambridge: Heffer and Sons, 1924), with important corrections offered by T. W. Manson, “The Life of Jesus: A Survey of the Available Material: (4) The Gospel According to St. Matthew,” BJRL 29 (1946) 392–428, at 396–99, 411–28.

25 Cf. Jacques Schlosser, La première épître de Pierre (Commentaire biblique: Nouveau Testament 21; Paris: Cerf, 2011) 253.

26 Others have reached this same conclusion, e.g., Samuel Bénétreau, La première épître de Pierre (2nd ed.; Commentaire évangélique de la Bible; Vaux-sur-Seine: Édifac, 1992) 246.

27 Cf. Mark Dubis, 1 Peter: A Handbook on the Greek Text (Baylor Handbook on the Greek New Testament; Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2010) 144; Greg W. Forbes, 1 Peter (Exegetical Guide to the Greek New Testament; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2014) 149. Some incorrectly claim that λόγια is the direct object of the understood imperative (e.g., Francis W. Beare, The First Epistle of Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction and Notes [3rd ed.; Oxford: Blackwell, 1970] 186; Paul J. Achtemeier, 1 Peter: A Commentary on First Peter [Hermeneia; Minneapolis: Fortress, 1996] 299).

28 See BDF §425(4); Nigel Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 3, Syntax (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1963) 158 n. 1.

29 See Herodotus, Hist. 8.62: “the oracles say (τὰ λόγια λέγει) we must found a colony there [i.e., Siris in Italy]”; cf. also Philo, Somn. 1.166: “the oracle calls (εἶπε τὸ λόγιον) the grandfather, ‘the father of the practitioner.’”

30 In the past, scholars have raised concerns about interpreting λόγια as a nominative subject on the basis that “λόγια are always things spoken (even if afterwards written down) and not things speaking” (Edward G. Selwyn, The First Epistle of St. Peter: The Greek Text with Introduction, Notes, and Essays [2nd ed.; London: Macmillan, 1947] 219).

31 Pausanias, Descr. 2.20.10; Plutarch, Thes. 26.4; cf. Manetho, Frags. 54.46.

32 Magi: Herodotus, Hist. 1.120. Prophets: Philo, Gig. 49; Spec. 1.315; 3.7; Mos. 2.188, 262–263; Praem. 1; Contempl. 25; Plutarch, Arist. 15.4; Philostratus, Imag. 1.4.2. Learned men: Arrian, Anab. 7.16.5.

33 Diodorus Siculus, Bib. hist. 15.74.3: ἔχων δὲ παρὰ θεῶν λόγιον (“he had an oracle from the gods”); Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. rom. 1.34.5: ὡσ ἔστιν εὑρεῖν ἔν τε Σιβνλλείοισ τισὶ λογίοισ καὶ ἄλλοισ χρηστηρίοισ ὑπὸ τῶν θεῶν δεδομένοισ εἰρημένον (“like those said to be found in certain Sibylline oracles and other prophecies given by the gods”); cf. also Pausanias, Descr. 10.1.10; Polyaenus, Strategemata 4.3.27; Philostratus, Imag. 2.33.1.

34 TDNT 4:139.

35 See, e.g., Peter H. Davids, The First Epistle of Peter (NICNT; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1990) 161; Leonhard Goppelt, A Commentary on I Peter (trans. J. E. Alsup; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993) 303.

36 Cf. Michaels, 1 Peter, 250–51.

37 Cf. John H. Elliott, 1 Peter: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary (AB 37B; New York: Doubleday, 2000) 759 n. 539: “The point of both qualifications is that the gifts of both speech and service are supplied by God.”

38 See Lewis R. Donelson, I & II Peter and Jude: A Commentary (NTL; Louisville: Westminster/ John Knox, 2010) 130; Watson, First Peter, 104.

39 See Dubis, 1 Peter, 21. See, further, Wallace, Greek Grammar, 431–38.

40 See Michelangelo Tábet, “La Scrittura e lo ‘Spirito di Cristo’ (1Pt 1,10–12),” in Initium Sapientiae: Scritti in onore di Franco Festorazzi nel suo 70° compleanno (ed. Rinaldo Fabris; RivBSup 36; Bologna: Dehoniane, 2000) 373–85, at 378: “la descrizione dello Spirito Santo come ‘mandato dal cielo’ serve … a caratterizzare il messaggio evangelico come messagio divinamente ispirato.”

41 John 1:1, 14; 1 John 1:1; Rev 19:13. Some posit a similar interpretation in this instance (e.g., Jacques Schlosser, “Ancien Testament et christologie dans la prima Petri,” in Études sur la première lettre de Pierre. Congrès de l’ACFEB, Paris 1979 [ed. Charles Perrot; LD 102; Paris: Cerf, 1980] 64–95, at 71–72; Jacob Prasad, Foundations of the Christian Way of Life according to 1 Peter 1, 13–25: An Exegetico-Theological Study [AnBib 146; Rome: Editrice Pontificio Istituto Biblico, 2000] 364–73).

42 See Martin H. Scharlemann, “Why the Kuriou in 1 Peter 1:25?,” CTM 30 (1959) 352–56, at 353–54.

43 See, e.g., E. Richard Perdelwitz, Die Mysterienreligion und das Problem des I. Petrusbriefes. Ein literarischer und religionsgeschichtlicher Versuch (RVV 11/3; Giessen: Töpelmann, 1911) 57–59; Beare, First Epistle of Peter, 115; cf. TDNT 1:646–47.

44 See, e.g., Frank L. Cross, 1 Peter: A Paschal Liturgy (2nd ed.; London: Mowbray, 1957) 47; A. R. C. Leaney, The Letters of Peter and Jude: A Commentary on the First Letter of Peter, a Letter of Jude and the Second Letter of Peter (CBC; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1967) 30.

45 The adjective is used to describe the uncontaminated form of various products: wine (P.Col. 280; CPR 18.5; P.Col. 280; P.Grenf. 90); corn/grain (P.Mich. 121; BGU 2024; P.Flor. 72); grain (BGU 1268, 1943, 1944); herbs (BGU 1015); olives (BGU 2333); radish seed (SB 10532); oil (P.Ryl. 97). But wheat is by far the most common (BGU 1005; P.Col. 176, 178; P.Mich. 312, 321, 567, 633; P.Oxy. 1474; P.Ryl. 601; P.Teb. 11, 105, 109, 388; et al.).

46 For more substantive treatments of this topic, see Troy W. Martin, “Christians as Babies: Metaphorical Reality in 1 Peter,” in Reading 1–2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students (ed. Eric F. Mason and Troy W. Martin; RBS 77; Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2014) 99–112, at 106–12; idem, “Tasting the Eucharistic Lord as Usable (1 Peter 2:3),” CBQ 78 (2016) 515–25, at 518–22; Alicia D. Myers, “Pater Nutrix: Milk Metaphors and Character Formation in Hebrews and 1 Peter,” in Making Sense of Motherhood: Biblical and Theological Perspectives (ed. Beth M. Stovell; Eugene, OR: Wipf & Stock, 2016) 81–99, at 82–88.

47 Myers, “Pater Nutrix,” 86.

48 See, further, Philip L. Tite, “Nurslings, Milk and Moral Development in the Greco-Roman Context: A Reappraisal of the Paraenetic Utilization of Metaphor in 1 Peter 2.1–3,” JSNT 31 (2009) 371–400.

49 Donelson, I & II Peter, 57.

50 See LSJ 1056; TDNT 4:142–43.

51 This view was common among an earlier generation of commentators (see, e.g., F. J. A. Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter I.1–II.17: The Greek Text with Introductory Lecture, Commentary, and Additional Notes [London: Macmillan, 1898] 100–101). But it has also been occasionally defended by more recent interpreters (e.g., W. Edward Glenny, “1 Peter 2:2a: Nourishment for Growth in Faith and Love,” in Interpreting the New Testament Text: Introduction to the Art and Science of Greek Exegesis [ed. Darrell L. Bock and Buist M. Fanning; Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2006] 441–48).

52 Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 101.

53 E.g., J. E. Huther, Kritisch exegetisches Handbuch über den 1. Brief des Petrus, den Brief des Judas und den 2. Brief des Petrus (4th ed.; KEK 12; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1877) 104; Henry Alford, The Greek Testament, vol. 4: The Epistle to the Hebrews, the Catholic Epistles of St. James and St. Peter, the Epistles of St. John and St. Jude, and the Revelation (5th ed.; Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1878) 345.

54 This translation is reflected in the majority of modern versions (e.g., NEB, NRSV, NIV, ESV, HCSB, NET), and it has been defended by a variety of modern interpreters (e.g., Donald P. Senior, 1 Peter [SP 15; Collegeville, MN: Liturgical Press, 2003] 49).

55 For a fuller discussion, see Elliott, 1 Peter, 400–401.

56 See James H. Moulton and Wilbert F. Howard, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, vol. 2, Accidence and Word-Formation (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1929) 377–79. Cf. also A. T. Robertson, A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research (4th ed.; Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1934) 157–58.

57 Since it is difficult to communicate this exact sense with an equivalent English term, the adjective is often treated as though it were the genitive (τοῦ) λόγον as a way to bring out its proper meaning; hence, “milk of the word” (cf. KJV, CEB, NASB, CSB, NKJV). Some have questioned this translation, with a few even declaring it to be an impossible rendering (see Hort, First Epistle of St. Peter, 100; Beare, First Epistle of Peter, 115). It is important, however, not to confuse an explanatory translation with a description of a form’s actual function. Although the sense of denominative adjectives with -κοσ suffixes can sometimes be conveyed by merely supplying an -ly ending to the English root word (e.g., Heb 9.1: τό ἅγιον κοσμικόν, “earthly sanctuary”), there is no standard means of communicating such forms in English. Often, it requires translating the adjective as though it were a genitive modifier (cf. Tit 3.9: μάχασ νομικάσ, “quarrels about the law”), which is the case in the present instance. Lacking a suitable English equivalent, it is perfectly natural to treat λογικόσ as though it were functioning like a genitive: “milk of the word.”

58 Cf. Achtemeier, 1 Peter, 147; Elliott, 1 Peter, 400–401.

59 See Dan G. McCartney, “λογικόσ in 1Peter 2,2,” ZNW 82 (1991) 128–32, at 132.

60 One of the strongest objections raised against this position is its circumlocution. In her critique of this position, Karen H. Jobes notes: “The straightforward phrase ‘word of God’ (logos tou theou) occurs in almost every book in the New Testament and more than eighty times throughout the whole. If Peter meant to restrict the referent of the metaphor to the preaching of the gospel or the reading of scripture, he had a straightforward way to say that” (“‘Got Milk?’ A Petrine Metaphor in 1 Peter 2.1–3 Revisited,” Leaven 20 [2012] 121–26, at 122). What this objection overlooks is how such an alteration would have impacted the semantics of the passage. If the author were to have written τὸ ἄδολον λόγον θεοῦ (“the uncontaminated word of God”), the metaphor of the new birth would have been compromised. Even τὸ ἄδολον γάλα λόγον (“uncontaminated milk of the word”) would have communicated something slightly different, placing the focus on λόγοσ rather than on γάλα. The explanation for the present construction, then, seems to lie in the author’s intent to maintain the metaphor that has been carried along over the last few verses.

61 Jobes has advocated a wider application of this referent beyond the word of God, arguing that the milk in question is “milk that is true to the nature of the new eschatological reality established by the resurrection of Jesus Christ and into which Peter’s readers have been re-born” (“Got Milk? Septuagint Psalm 33 and the Interpretation of 1 Peter 2:1–3,” WTJ 64 [2002] 1–14, at 13). The basis for this claim lies in Jobes’s insistence that the referent be sought not in the preceding verses (1:23–25) but in the more immediate context (2:1–3) and, in particular, in connection with the quotation from Ps 33 (LXX) in v. 3 (see, further, idem, “‘O Taste and See’: Septuagint Psalm 33 in 1 Peter,” Stone-Campbell Journal 18 [2015] 241–51, at 245–50). However, such a theory is unable to account adequately for the various connections between milk and the word of God mentioned above.

62 See, further, Cliff Barbarick, “Milk to Grow On: The Example of Christ in 1 Peter,” in Getting ‘Saved’: The Whole Story of Salvation in the New Testament (ed. Charles H. Talbert et al.; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011) 216–39.