Iver Larsen iver_larsen at sil.org
Mon May 13 07:09:52 EDT 2002

> Aarhus, Denmark, May 12. 2002.
> Put in another way: If A is related to B in a specific way and if C is
> related to D in that way too then D is C's LOGIKOS B. Let A = newborn
> babies, B = milk, C = the elected ones, and D = the living stone,
> then - supposing the elected ones do desire the living stone as babies
> desire milk - then the living stone, D, becomes the elected ones' -
> C's - LOGIKOS milk - LOGIKOS B. All this is - if seen - most easily
> seen in 1 Pet. 2:2 as we here have all the ingredients - the babies,
> the milk, the elected ones, and the living stone - present. We do not
> have all the ingredients in Rom. 12:1, we have to provide them and let
> A = the Israelites and B = the offerings and the sacrifices in the
> Temple in order to make sense of the word 'LOGIKOS' there; that is for
> the Romans' - C's - presentation of their bodies, D, to become their
> LOGIKOS sacrifice and offering, their LOGIKOS B.

Hi, Troels

It seems to me that you are saying LOGIKOS has the meaning of marking a
statement as a metaphor. But I see no logical, empirical or contextual
reason for doing so. The Bible is full of metaphors and they are never
marked as such by an adjective attached to one of the parts of the
illustration. In 1 Pet 2:2 the comparison is marked with hWS (and therefore
strictly speaking a simile rather than a metaphor, but that distinction is
not important here). In Rom 12:1 there is no overt marking, but it is
clearly a metaphor.
If you equate LOGIKOS with "indicating a comparison" you are basically
saying that the word adds nothing to the sense. This is IMO in conflict with
the use of the word here as an adjective describing one of the elements in
the comparison.
1 Pet 2:2 is a common example of a metaphor with two elements in the
illustration and the topic:
A craves B as C craves D
where A=newborn babies, B=literal milk, C=you-plural(from the verb).
D is not stated directly, but needs to be understood from the words LOGIKON
You suggest that D=Christ, and I disagree, because I see this as a metonymy.
Believers are not tasting or eating Christ himself, but the words that He
speaks. Eating and tasting the Word of God is a known metaphor in the Bible
(e.g. Ez 3:1-3, Matt 4, Rev 10:9-10). The drinking metaphor is used in John
about Jesus offering spiritual water, closely connected to the words he
LOGIKON is intended to direct the reader towards what literal milk is
compared to. Therefore both the concepts "of the Word" and "spiritual" are
possible in the context, and both may well be involved since the words of
Jesus can only be comprehended by the help of the Spirit. Words like
"logical" or "comparatively speaking" is hardly a possible meaning of
LOGIKOS here, even though Peter is speaking comparatively by using a simile.

Rom 12:1-2 also has a complex metaphor where old sacrifices are compared to
new sacrifices.
A metaphor always deals with an illustration, a topic and a point of
The illustration is normally well known to the readers, and here it is the
old LATREIA which consisted of bringing a dead body of an animal as a
sacrifice to God in such a way that it was well-pleasing to him.
The topic is the new LATREIA which consists of bringing a living body
(yourselves) to God in such a way that it is well-pleasing to him, according
to his will (verse 2).
For the reader to get the contrast, words like "living" and LOGIKOS are
used. We know from Paul elsewhere that the main difference between the old
and new LATREIA is that the old service was outwardly, literal, physical
whereas the new service is inwardly and spiritual. The overall context
therefore supports the sense of "spiritual" here.
It would be too bland and meaningless for Paul just to say that "you are to
sacrifice a metaphorical sacrifice." The metaphor is implied rather than
marked by LOGIKOS.
> I know of no word in either English, German, or Danish that behaves in
> the way LOGIKOS does - given that it does behave in this way, which is
> after all still to be decided - but the German 'angemessen' seems to
> me to do better than other suggestions. 'Logical' may come close but
> is still too far off. But then again, English is not my mother tongue
> so I'll have to let the English and the Americans decide on that. (Why
> don't we have a word like 'logikosical'? That would solve all the
> problems!)

Why don't you translate 'angemessen' so we know what you mean? This word has
several different senses. It seems to me that you take a different sense
from Bauer's use of it. (My German-Danish dictionary suggests: tilsvarende
(corresponding), passende (suitable), rimelig (reasonable)). The English
Bauer understood angemessen to mean reasonable, whereas you seem to suggest
the other sense of corresponding. It appears that your argument is based on
the mixing of senses of a particular German word rather than what the Greek
word means.

Iver Larsen

More information about the B-Greek mailing list