CHAPTER 3: ROMANS 12-16 CONFLICT EXEGETICAL STUDY
3.3 Study of conflict principles in Romans 12-16
3.3.2 Personal conflict (12:1-2)
3.3.2.3 The desired results of the conflict
One of the additional ways that Paul makes apparent God’s desired response for what He has done for mankind in showing mercy to us through the work of His Son on the cross, is by His employment of the infinitive in conjunction with a verb of communication – demonstrating an instance of indirect discourse.169 That infinitive usage is followed by two imperatives,170 adding additional impetus. So, the syntax employed here further amplifies the conflict for everyone.
168 Toews (2004:296-297) has a similar conclusion, describing this as “a new set of metaphors – sacrifice to God, nonconformity to this world, transformation … of the mind”. While he sees the approval of God’s will as a reason for the previous actions, it still is a right response to the conflict created by God’s mercies.
169 Gk. Παρακαλῶ … παραστῆσαι
170 Gk. συσχηματίζεσθε … μεταμορφοῦσθε
3.3.2.3.1 Yielding
In a rejoinder to God’s mercy, Paul advocates for a response of yielding171 “your bodies as a sacrifice172 – living, holy, acceptable to God173 – your logical, divine service”.174 All of these terms add to the conflict of the situation. Because of the mercies of God, each individual is asked to yield; so, resistance is indicative of a wrong response. What is yielded is the body – the totality of the individual175 – and not what is convenient nor easy. The action is sacrificial and costly versus economical and comfortable. The sacrifice itself is characterised by vitality, holiness, and acceptability which means that it is the result of following a prescribed process. Such an example is observed in the OT where the Day of Atonement (Lev 16) required a prescriptive process, in that the life of an innocent creature had to be given in exchange for the guilty.176 That transfer of guilt involved a procedure that, if followed correctly, resulted in a holy sacrifice which in turn was accepted by God as proven by the departure of the High Priest from the Tabernacle/Temple. This prescriptive process was in perpetuity for the atonement of the sins of Israel. Whether or not Paul had this particular sacrifice in mind is unknown, but what Paul makes clear is that this right
171 Gk. παρίστημι. As the lexicons indicate, this word involves presenting or making available. However, this word has previously been used in 6:13, 16, and 19 with the idea of yielding your body. In order to present, one must first yield which is seen more clearly by the contrastive connotation of chapter 6. In addition, the aorist form of this infinitive is sometimes used to convey the idea of once-for-all, and as Schreiner (1998:643) informs, that notion conveys more than the aorist can, infringing on the contextual consideration. Harris (2020:201) further explains that “the aorist tense stem has a perfective aspect, which views an action or event from an external, summary perspective. This is like a photo”.
172 Gk. τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν. This is a likely double accusative in an object-complement construction after the verb παρίστημι (see Wallace 1996:618). Hodges (2013:loc. 8189) has an interesting observation here: “Thus the connection in this verse between service and sacrifice is intrinsic to the image that Paul has in mind. But since in Judaism only priests officiated at sacrifices, the implication arises that Paul is talking here about his readers’ role as believer-priests.” Some view the singular θυσία as indicative of a
“unified act performed collectively” (Oakes, 2009:loc. 1173), and that may be true, but it is also explained by the simple fact that Paul addresses a group about an individual response – no one can do this for someone else.
173 Gk. ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ. An adjectival participle and two adjectives agreeing in gender, number, and case with the complement θυσίαν. Moo (2018:769) makes this sober observation: “It is not only what we can give that God demands; he demands the giver”. And, as Morris (1988:434) notes, this participial description “marks a difference from the general run of sacrifices. It is true that animal victims were living when they were brought to the altar (a dead animal could not be brought for sacrifice), but as offered they were dead.”
174 Gk. τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν. These are appositional points (Harvey, 2017:loc. 11857) emphasising both the logic of the decision to respond correctly to the conflict as well as the nature of the service given. Runge (2010:315, 317) describes them as overspecification (another aspect of thematic highlighting – Is one thinking about the topic correctly?) which is providing more information about something than is needed in order to understand, but prodding the reader or hearer to “conceptualize the referent in a specific way”. The translation seeks to demonstrate that weighted point.
175 Gk. τὰ σώματα. Dunn (1988b:709) observes: “The sacrificial allusion helps explain the use of σώματα rather than μέλη (‘limbs, parts’), as in 6:13, 19: the sacrifice is the body in its wholeness and not just its individual elements”.
176 A similar prescriptive process is seen throughout the book of Hebrews in Jesus’ work on behalf of a more preferable covenant (Heb 7:22).
response to the mercies of God is the logical, divine service of God’s child, just as observed in Leviticus 16.
There are many lessons to be learned from this indirect discourse of 12:1. McKnight illustrates some of them when he addresses the possibility of a right sacrificial response at all: “The sacrifice is offered … because of the transforming power of God’s mercy and grace” (2019:loc. 647). And, he adds that “this sacrifice is a dual action of God orientation and away-from-the-world orientation”
(2019:loc. 690) which addresses the possible impact on the world system. The point, however, in the conflict narrative is that this yielding is the right response to conflict – conflict which arises to call mankind to perform their logical, divine service to this merciful God.
3.3.2.3.2 Non-conformity
Beginning with the conjunction καὶ, this next phrase joins the previous phrase on yielding as a further elaboration of what God expects. However, it is presented in the form of a counterpoint177 to the point that follows in the second half of the verse. With regard to its meaning, this phrase addresses how this yielding (or a living, holy, acceptable sacrifice) appears, in the shape of non- conformity178 to this age.179 In other words, the typical act of conformity is the counterpoint that will be replaced by the point that follows. Therefore, this resistance to the contemporary influences is a crucial component of yielding one’s body, and this reality raises great conflict for the believer.
177 Runge (2010) states that the “point-counterpoint set” is a category of the “forward-pointing devices”
which are designed to decelerate the speed with which someone is understanding the material and to cause them to 1) link concepts that might not have been linked, and 2) to attract more awareness to the issue under discussion. In essence, what is happening is that Paul is saying, “Wait! You think that you are getting it; well, let me show you what this really looks like!” The point-counterpoint accomplishes that task.
178 Gk. μὴ συσχηματίζω. Found in the NT only here and 1 Peter 1:14, the idea is “to form or mold one’s behavior in accordance with a particular pattern or set of standards” (L-N, 1996:506). In addition, Longenecker (2016:922) addresses the possibility of translating this word with the negative particle as stop conforming, but as he highlights, this prohibition is not just for the Romans but is also a general principle for all believers. Dunn (1988b:712) posits an important point for this discussion of conflict: “The present imperative, however, indicates that human responsibility is also involved – that the individual can accept or resist such power structures, can acquiesce in or resist such behavior patterning”.
179 Gk. τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ. There are two important issues with this phrase. First, as opposed to world, Paul refers to this time as an age which Lenski (1936:749) describes as “a great stretch of time but one that is marked and characterized and thus made a unit by what transpires in it”. Second, as Runge (2010) states, this is another instance of thematic highlighting where the use of the near demonstrative pronoun underscores the impact of this age addressed. As Dunn (1988b:712) notes: “Paul in effect recognizes the power of social groups, cultural norms, institutions, and traditions to mold patterns of individual behavior”. However, as Witherington and Hyatt (2004:286) point out: “Paul often uses the phrase ‘this age’ (1 Cor. 1:20; 2:6, 8; 3:18; 2 Cor. 4:4; Eph. 1:21 and cf. Gal. 1:4; 1 Cor. 3:19; 5:10; 7:31). He believes that, while believers live in this world and this age, the form of this world is passing away. It is foolish to conform oneself to what is obsolescent and on the way out.”
3.3.2.3.3 Transformation
The point Paul inserts as a replacement180 to the counterpoint is transformational,181 and is realised as a renewal182 of the mind.183 Without transformation of one’s thinking processes there can be no transformation of action. Mounce (1995:232) provides a great perspective by noting that the resistance of non-conformity is not enough; “real and lasting change comes from within”.
He also adds this assessment which is pertinent to the discussion of conflict: “Although God brings about the transformation, we must voluntarily place ourselves at his disposal so it can happen.
He will not ‘transform’ us against our will.”184 It is for this reason that Paul urges the Roman believers; each one must respond to the conflict appropriately – in a way that pleases God (this is only logical).185 Following on that submission is a result; as Oakes (2009:loc. 1317) explains,
“Its call for a renewed mind is to lead to new practices”. Right thinking, which replaces the contemporary thinking of this sinful age, leads to right actions, which in turn lead to the final aspect of this pericope – the approval of God’s will.
180 The idea of replacement is also emphasised by the use of the adversative particle ἀλλὰ.
181 Gk. μεταμορφόω. Used previously in the NT only in reference to the transfiguration of Christ (Matt 17:2 and Mark 9:2), it is used here and 2 Corinthians 3:18 to speak of the inward transformation of believers.
While not all scholars agree to a vast distinction from συσχηματίζω, Morris (1988:435) recognises that
“Paul is looking for a transformation at the deepest level that is infinitely more significant than the conformity to the world’s pattern that is distinctive of so many lives”.
182 Gk. άνακαίνωσις. While it is used only here and Titus 3:5 in the NT, what is remarkable about this word is that, according to Jewett and Kotansky (2007:733), this is the first appearance of the term in all Greek literature. Z (2000) defines it as “a renewing or a renovation which makes a person different than in the past”. Trench (1880:65-66) notes two key aspects. First, that this process involves “the restoration of the Divine image,” and second, the necessity to cooperate with God in this process.
183 Gk. νοῦς. The necessity for this human control centre to be transformed and renewed has already been ascertained in 3.2.1.3.3 from 1:28. Schreiner (1998:647) describes this process as “the downward spiral of thinking traced in Romans 1:18-32 [that] is reversed in those who are redeemed from sin. Their minds are not given over to futility but are renewed to understand the truth. The means of transformation does not bypass the human personality or the brain. Human beings are transformed as their thinking is altered.” And Keener (2009:143-144) adds that “the renewed mind here contrasts with the depraved mind (1:28), the mind under the flesh (7:23, 25; 8:5-7)”.
184 This is found in note 12 on page 232 of Mounce.
185 Gk. λογικός. “It is found only here and in 1 Peter 2:2, and not at all in the LXX. However, it was a favorite expression of ancient philosophers from the time of Aristotle, and is found often in the writings of Philo, Justin, Tatian, and Athenagoras” (Kruse, 2012:463). Z (2000) describes it as an “adj. from logos … reason, word. Pertaining to reason and therefore reasonable, or pertaining to speech as reasonable expression.” BDAG (2000:598) defines it as “pert. to being carefully thought through, thoughtful”, and L- N (1996:674) adds that it is “pertaining to being genuine, in the sense of being true to the real and essential nature of something – ‘rational, genuine, true’”. As Longenecker (2016:921) notes, its similarity with πνευματικός does not equate to this occasion being translated as “spiritual service”, for Paul could have said that if he so desired (under inspiration). He concludes that “it is eminently reasonable, both intellectually and spiritually, for believers in Jesus, because they experienced ‘the [aforestated] mercies of God,’ to dedicate themselves wholly to God”. Hughes (1991:214) makes this important application from this word’s meaning; he writes: “Halfway committment [sic] is irrational. To decide to give part of your life to God and keep other parts for yourself – to say ‘Everything is yours, Lord, but this relationship, this deal, this pleasure’ – is beyond spiritual logic!”
3.3.2.3.4 Approval of God’s will
There are four helpful aspects of this phrase to consider that are beneficial in understanding its significance to this discussion on conflict. First, there is the result of the triad of yielding, non- conformity, and transformation – the approval of God’s will. Interpretatively, the inclusion of εἰς τὸ with an infinitive can introduce either purpose or result for its usage, but in this case, it seems a better fit to use result, as it “expresses the consequences of the action of the main verb”.186 Second, there is the task of approval. The approval187 of God’s will results in a knowledge that cannot be gained any other way than by the process of approbation. It is informative to consider this observation in terms of the two previous passages in Romans where δοκιμάζω appeared. The first occurrence, in 1:28, links a lack of personal knowledge188 of God with a non-approval of God where man divests of God from his personal knowledge. The second occurrence is in 2:18 where δοκιμάζω is found in conjunction with God’s will – a knowledge189 claim by the Jews that Paul confronts as hypocritical. So, one of the results of responding to the conflict of Romans 12:1 correctly is a reversal of what is found earlier occurring in sinful man – both Jew and Gentile – the development of personal knowledge of God.190
Third, there is the object of the approval – God’s will. What carries greater significance, especially in light of the mercies of God, than knowing and following God’s will? Without this prescribed
186 This definition is from the BJU Greek faculty handbook (2007:101). Wallace (1996:592) explains result as “the outcome produced by the controlling verb”. Merkle and Plummer (2020:240) clarify the distinction by stating that the result usage of the infinitive “expresses an actual result and not merely an intended one (i.e., purpose)” which, although not tangible, is what discovering God’s will is – an actual result. The tipping point towards result, for this researcher, is both the inclusion of the three descriptive terms of God’s will – three characteristics that are realised from approval of God’s will, and the passive voice of the point-counterpoint verbs.
187 Gk. δοκιμάζω. BDAG (2000:255) explains this word as “to draw a conclusion about worth on the basis of testing, prove, approve, here the focus is on the result of a procedure or examination”. This definition underlines the point above about the use of the infinitive as result.
188 Gk. ἐπίγνωσις. Z (2000) explains that this word “is more intens. than gnṓsis … knowledge, because it expresses a more thorough participation in the acquiring of knowledge on the part of the learner. In the NT, it often refers to knowledge which very powerfully influences the form of religious life, a knowledge laying claim to personal involvement”. It is interesting that only Jewett (2007:182), among the newer scholars, recognises the intensification of this type of knowledge; however, the older scholars (Lenski, Wuest, Trench, and Nicoll) frequently discuss this point.
189 Gk. γινώσκω. BDAG (2000:199) defines it this way: “to arrive at a knowledge of someone or someth., know, know about, make acquaintance of.” Moo (2018:118), acknowledging a limitation to this word, states: “This limited knowledge of God falls far short of what is necessary to establish a relationship with him”. Fitzmyer (2008:281) notices that “what is denied in these passages is the real, affective knowledge of God”. The point is that the knowledge claimed by the Jews, was not a personal, effective knowledge, and this is confirmed by the vocabulary used in this verse.
190 Moo (2018:775-776) echoes this observation when he writes: “In Rom. 1:28 Paul has pointed out that people’s rejection of God has resulted in God’s giving them over to a ‘worthless’ mind: one that is
‘unqualified’ (adokimos) in assessing the truth about God and the world he has made. Now, Paul asserts, the purpose of our being transformed by the renewing of the mind is that this state might be reversed;
that we might be able to ‘approve’ (dokimazō) the will of God.”
process of 12:1-2, God’s will can be known, but not experienced, and that experience is highlighted by the interrogative pronoun191 indicating the discovery of what is God’s will in this instance. As one surrenders as a living sacrifice to God, one approves what is God’s will in each instance of surrender.192
Finally, there is the character of God’s will which is good,193 acceptable,194 and complete.195 The three adjectives describe the integrity of God’s will. Therefore, the correct response to the conflict of 12:1 leads to the experience of what is worthwhile, and the approval of God’s chosen process.
This comes full circle as God’s mercies are what made this spiritual growth possible, and when one responds to that conflict correctly, that spiritual growth is accomplished and recognised for what it is – good, acceptable, and complete. Gaventa has an interesting observation at this point;
she views this pericope as a discussion of worship (2016:79).196 If worship is viewed as a
191 Gk. τί. Wallace (1996:345) states that “an interrogative pronoun asks a question … typically asking an identifying question”. It can also “introduce both direct and indirect questions”. In this instance, it is introducing an indirect question which could be rephrased as: What is God’s will that I am approving.
192 As mentioned in note 171 of 3.3.2.3.1, the idea of a once-for-all sacrifice is not warranted by the aorist tense, and it does not comport with the present imperatives that speak of an imperfective aspect of
“action in progress or process” (Köstenberger et al., 2016:loc. 6081). More in line with this aspectual understanding is the idea that the aorist conveys the sacrifice from a perfective standpoint of in this instance. Therefore, a better image is to view each instance of yielding one’s body as a living, holy, acceptable sacrifice as the discovery of God’s will in this instance. For example, when confronted with a particular temptation, the motivation to respond with obedience is based upon what God has done for me, and when I respond in obedience, I am in effect, presenting my body as a sacrifice to Him – experiencing and demonstrating what is His will. Boa and Kruidenier (2000:366) acknowledge a similar process; they write: “What is to ‘fuel’ the metamorphosis that takes place in the believer’s life?
Transformation (‘conformation’ to the image of Christ) happens when the renewed mind begins to test and approve what God’s will is – his good, pleasing and perfect will. It is the will of God – his standards, his desires, his motives, his values, his practices – which gradually pull the monarch butterfly of the believer out of the world’s cocoon into which he or she has been squeezed. It is a knowledge and practice of the will of God that leads to spiritual growth and maturity in the Christian’s life [authors’
emphasis].”
193 Gk. ἀγαθός. Godet and Cusin (1890:284) state that it is “free from all connivance with evil, in any form whatever”.
194 Gk. εὐάρεστος. This was first seen in the previous verse as part of the personal sacrifice to God – one that Osborne (2017:loc. 6220) says is “building on the image of the sacrifice as giving off a ‘pleasing aroma’ for God”. Here in reference to God’s will, the meaning is towards mankind as Godet and Cusin (1890:284) state that it suggests “the impression produced on men when they contemplate this will realized in the believer’s life. They cannot help paying it a tribute of admiration, and finding it beautiful as well as good.”
195 Gk. τέλειος. BDAG (2000:995) describes this as the “acme of goodness”, while Z (2000) defines it as
“finished, that which has reached its end, term, limit; hence, complete, full, wanting in nothing … [using it] figuratively, in a moral sense”, and Friberg, et al. (2000:377) state “its chief component as totality, as opposed to partial or limited”. The notion is that when the personal sacrifice is made, God’s will is accomplished in one’s life (as the highest good), and that point is recognised by the individual.
196 She plainly states: “The net effect of Romans 12:1 is to place Christian living within the sphere of worship” (2016:83). She adds, referring to 1:21, that “withholding worship, which is what he means when he speaks of not glorifying God and not giving God thanks, is the cause of a host of distorted practices [Gaventa’s emphasis]” (2016:85). And, finally, she summarises the book by declaring that “the arc of the letter, from 1:18 to 15:13, has to do with humanity rejecting the worship of God and, through the intervention of God in the gospel, being empowered to praise God in the company of others” (2016:94).