THE WILL OF THE LORD:
NEW INSIGHTS INTO ROMANS 12:1-2
WILLIAM V. MCDONALD Ph.D.
In Romans 12:1-2 Paul addressed non-Jewish believers concerning the subject of being transformed by a renewed mind. His instruction began with a strong pleading to present their bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and acceptable to God. Paul’s model for such an appeal was none other than the Messiah Jesus Christ, who, in John 6:38[1] provided the specifications (Perat) to the general rule of Romans 12:1-2 (Kalal) addressing the rabbinic hermeneutics for transformation by a renewed mind. The source of Paul’s admonition is Leviticus 1: 2-4.
Paul writes in Romans 12:1-2:
I beseech you therefore, brethren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is your reasonable service. And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God. (KJV)
Therefore, I urge you, brothers, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as living sacrifices, holy and pleasing to—God this is your spiritual act of worship. Do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind. Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is-his good, pleasing and perfect will (NIV).
In Romans 12:1-2 Paul’s[2] hermeneutical principles can only be discerned by understanding the cultural setting within the Jewish sources. What did Paul mean when he said, “by the mercies of God, present your bodies as living sacrifices?” This phrase stirs up age old controversies relating to Paul’s intended meaning in these verses. Determination of what Paul meant or means,[3] is at the heart of higher biblical criticism. In fact when this text is properly translated these verses provide profound spiritual insights for the globalization of the twenty first century church.
Reorientation from Hellenic to Hebraic Methodology
Unfortunately the Hebraic methodology, for the most part, was not considered a serious analytical tool among many higher scholastic disciplines. It remained largely ignored by the German theological schools of the eighteenth, nineteenth, and twentieth centuries. One scholar among many, who promoted the thesis that any connection between the OT and NT was based upon a history of failure, was Rudolf Bultmann. Thus “some scholars have posited the problem of the relationship between the Testaments by designating the OT in fact as a book of a non-Christian religion.”[4] Therein, the analytical influence of the enlightenment period produced little to no academic research aiding in understanding the NT from a Hebraic perspective.
There should be no doubt concerning Paul’s Hebraic methodology. Any efforts to interpret Romans 12:1-2 without examining these verses from a rabbinic perspective will undoubtedly produce textual misrepresentation. Paul’s calling was to take a message to the pagan world, where converts would be grafted into the olive tree of Israel (Rom. 11:17, 19, 23, 24). The image of being grafted into the olive tree establishes that the branch is co-dependent upon the root for faith and nourishment. Thus, without understanding their historical and theological connection to the root, non-Jewish believers will struggle in finding their true purpose as it relates to the teachings of both Jesus and Paul.
It is indeed a fact that the mind-set of Paul in Romans 12:1-2 is clearly Hebraic and his philosophical position can be completely understood within the Jewish setting of his day. Paul is not advancing a Hellenistic agenda as German academics have proposed.
In verse 1 Paul utilized the phrase, “In view of God’s mercy,” The word mercy has a basic connection with Matthew 5:7: “Blessed are the merciful.” The Hebrew word for mercy, rakom, means compassion, or compassionate, and is “a less moralistic version of the term.” In Matthew 5:7 “mercy” also has to do with “the one who, confessing his sins and forsaking them, obtains mercy.” Thus to obtain mercy is to obtain forgiveness as of sin(s); therefore, he who shows compassion in forgiving will also obtain forgiveness.[5] In view of God’s compassionate forgiveness of sin, Paul’s instruction was that the believers offer their bodies as living sacrifices. Modern Hellenistic scholars interpret this phrase as a type of worship or praise to attain transformation by a renewed mind. According to Jewish thought, “presenting one’s body as a living sacrifice” captured the vision of the highest mystery of God’s redemptive purpose. Paul, a Jewish theologian, drew upon the sacrificial structure in Leviticus 1:2-4. It is a sacrificial system that is repeated today in Jewish daily prayers.[6]
Paul’s Hebraic Understanding of the Sacrificial System
According to Paul, the act of obedience in presenting one’s body as a living sacrifice activates the process of cleansing and purification. Paul utilized Leviticus 1: 4 in a philosophical way; his instructions embraced both the type and the anti-type concept. Both Romans and Leviticus required each male to place their sins upon the unblemished male sacrifice thus activating a spiritual law. These actions satisfied the requirement for a relationship with a Holy God.
At this early stage in the spiritual development of the nation, the Israelites had no knowledge of their divine God or the statutes of the Decalogue. Paul, a student of Gamaliel, was trained in the study of Jewish culture and that of oral traditions. Leviticus 1:2-4 provided Paul with a synthesis of faith and practice for Romans 12:1-2. Thus, the book of Leviticus represents a two-fold theme designed to instruct the people in finding their way to God and the walk he demands.
In Exodus 18:1 – 20:23 a structured judicial system was recommended to Moses as he prepared the people for the revelation at Mt. Sinai with the giving of the Decalogue, which they accepted. The stipulations in Leviticus provided instructions that were designed to aid the Israelites during this developmental stage in learning to know their God.[7] It is clear the people knew very little about God. Therein, these instructions introduced at Mt. Sinai began a process of building relations between the people and their God. While Leviticus is a book of purification or holiness, it is also a book in which a transcendent God could be present with his people. Upon the Israelites’ arrival at Mt. Sinai one fact was glaringly clear: their awareness of the Lord’s nature was extremely limited; they knew nothing of their God. The task before the Lord was clear to reveal the redemptive aspect of his Deity.
Moses, on behalf of the Lord, was confronted with a number of major challenges. No less was the need to bring an unholy people into relationship with Deity. It is instructive that the Lord chose to address the people at the levels of their understanding. They were entrenched within the civilization of cultic worship and practices; for them it was a common part of daily life. The Torah takes into account the cultural necessities of the people and the utilization within the Decalogue to address these needs.
Concerning this issue, the Jewish sages stated: “the sacrificial system teaches one to act toward God in the best way possible.”[8] Paul is completely aware of his historical and cultural history; he connects Romans 12:1-2 with that of the holy book of Leviticus. Onkelos’ references the sacrificial offering as “the most significant sacrifice that could be brought in the Tabernacle UNBLEMISHED.”[9] According to Leviticus 1:3-4:
If one’s offering is an elevation-offering from the cattle, he is to offer an unblemished male; he is to bring it to the entrance of the Tent of Meeting, voluntarily, before Hashem. He shall lean his hand upon the head of the elevation-offering; and it shall become acceptable for him, to atone for him.[10]
In Romans 12:1, Paul makes a very important connection between two Hebrew words in Leviticus 1:3-4. First the offering in v. 3 must be tamim, unblemished, and secondly, it is to be brought into the Tent of Meetings, implying the act of presenting the offering. The connection of Romans 12:1-2 with Leviticus 1:3-4 highlights the offering as it is presented voluntarily; this link is seen in Paul’s word “present” your bodies. Paul continues his association by comparing the Hebrew word lirtzono or ratzon from the root ratza which has the meaning of goodwill, favour, acceptance, and will.[11]
Without a doubt the connections of the unblemished male animal is a type which represents the Messiah who removed sin, and redeemed all mankind. The interesting part of this comparison is the word “acceptable” in v. 4 which is the Hebrew word nirtza of the same root, and appropriately can also be translated as “God’s will.” Thus, according to the Hebraic mindset, only that which is acceptable is equal to or the same as the will of the Lord. In this simple act of presenting an unblemished sacrifice, Yahweh aids spiritually deprived individuals by doing for them that which they were incapable of doing for themselves, i.e., establishing relationship between a divine God and his people.
If the above acts appear to be questioned among scholars, according to Walter C. Kaiser’s A History of Israel “The disagreement among scholars is not so much over the ‘facts’ in the field; rather, it is over how one should interpret those facts, and with what sorts of presuppositions one may legitimately approach the study of the Old Testament.”[12]
A New Testament with an Ancient Concept
When Paul writes in Romans 12:1, “that you present your bodies as living sacrifices,” he draws upon Leviticus 1:3-4. The Hebrew word for sacrifice/offering is carav, and means to come near, implying that “the person bringing an offering does so in order to come close to God, to elevate his level of spirituality” (Rom 15:16).[13] Paul states: “this is your spiritual act of worship” (NIV). According to Paul each individual presents his or her body as a sacrificial offering to fulfill the process of purification. During this procedure the believer’s will is slowly being united to and transformed into God’s will. Paul interprets this process as a spiritual transformation that takes place by a renewed mind[14] based upon obedience.[15]
Paul writes in v. 2, “do not conform any longer to the pattern of this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind,” which philosophically can be comparable to Leviticus 1:3. In verse 3 the Hebrew text used the words korban olah, or “that which goes up,”[16] referring to the burnt offering, and according to Onkelos it is more important to understand “the details of how the sacrificial function were implemented” than their meaning. The sages translate the phrase as burnt offering for two reasons, the offering is completely consumed on the altar and it ascends to heaven (Rashi and Radak). Nachmanides and ibn Ezra state, the offerings are presented when sinful thoughts arise or (“go up”) in the mind.
Thus the general rules of offerings were given to the people at Sinai. These statutes were standards designed to bring about relationship between individuals and also between them and the Lord. Moses came near the mountain to receive the memra [word or wisdom] of the Lord, and to present the instructions (Torah) of his covenant to the people. According to Leviticus 1, the purpose of the offerings was to draw the people close to the Lord. The sacrifices were divided into various categories based upon propitiatory and dedicatory offerings.
It is the dedicatory offering that has special interest for this study. The burnt offering is also known as Elevation-Offering which is “brought voluntarily, and it may be brought to the Temple even by non-Jews (Chullin 13b, Isaiah 56:7).”[17] The Hebrew word for offering, olah, often is translated with various meanings. However, Ramban, Ibn Ezra, and R’ Bachya “hold that the name refers to the sin for which one generally brings the offering. It atones for sinful ideas or thoughts, which come up in a person’s mind or imagination.”[18]
In the sacrificial worship system the mercy seat represented the place where the highest acts of atonement were performed. The high priest sprinkled the blood of the sacrifice on the mercy seat (Ex. 16:15) making atonement for the priest and all the people (Lev. 16:1-34). God’s grace was manifested toward a sinful people in the sacrifice. In the expiatory sacrifices of Israel, two results can be seen: by self-humiliation and reparation divine justice is satisfied and atonement is made to the wrath of God. Therein, the sinner’s state of defilement and sin is exchanged for one of purity.[19]
The book of Leviticus provides detailed instructions on the sacrificial system such as the cutting of the inner organs as it is totally consumed on the altar. The dedicatory aspect of the offering embraced obedience, as the presenter of the offering displays a releasing of the will in order to be accepted (Gen 22:1-13). When Noah departed the ark he immediately offered a burnt offering to the Lord. This was a clear indication that Noah was in complete fellowship with the Lord. Onkelos interprets Genesis 8:21 as “The Lord accepted his sacrifice with favor” it also acknowledges how the Hebrew text interprets the same passage; “the Lord smelled the soothing odor.” However, He accepted the offering and it was pleasing to him.”[20] According to the Artscroll Tanach Series, Bereshis, interprets it as an obvious metaphor. In Rabbinical teachings the offering given by Noah also brought about the study of God’s anthropomorphic expression into the text. In v. 21 the passage stated: “The Lord smelled the pleasing aroma, and the Lord said in His heart.” Noah’s positive experience in v. 21 was predicated on his obedience to the will of God, which is also seen in three other places (6:2, 7:5, and 7:9).
Paul’s linguistic and rabbinic abilities are clearly seen as he refers to the act of presenting one’s body as holy and pleasing/acceptable unto God. Twice in the text special emphasis is placed on the results of obedience as meeting a spiritual standard that pleases the Lord. In Romans 12:1-2 the request sets in motion the general rule, “present or offer your bodies,” resulting in the surrendering of the individual’s will, the specification. Paul understands how the act of obedience was the key to having a transformed life and an intimate relationship with the Lord.
When the Council of Jerusalem was called to address the issues concerning the new gentile converts becoming a part of the fellowship, the Jewish believers chose not to impose upon them circumcision, which was a sign of the Abrahamic covenant. Instead they selected the Noahic covenant (Gen. 8:20-9:17) as the only requirements for being accepted into the community of faith (Acts 15:20). Paul’s strict education in the law of the fathers made him uniquely prepared to serve in his calling to the gentiles. It is very possible that Paul used Romans 12:1-2 to fulfill a statement found in Oral law. From Avoth 2, Mishnah 4: “He used to say, Do His will as though it were thy will that He may carry out thy will as if it were His will. Nullify thy will before His will in order that He may annul the will of others before thy will.”[21]
Paul was fluent in his understanding of Torah and undoubtedly aware of the teachings concerning Abel in Genesis 4:3-5. Abel’s sacrifice suggests he had no confidence in presenting an offering from his material substance. The sages teach that Abel was completely devoted to God, and as a result, he was ready to offer all of himself in addition to his animals. Therefore, his sacrifice was so much more acceptable.”[22] Abel’s sacrifice was given in the humility of the spirit, thus making his offering more acceptable. Again, the sages remark: “the Lord turned to Abel and to his offering which was the way that God showed His regard for pleasing sacrifices, as He also did in the Tabernacle [Lev. 9:24], and with Elijah [1 Kings 18:38] (B’chor Shor).”[23]
Conclusion
Paul’s words in Romans 12:1-2 were not just statements to aid the spiritually deprived; they were statements embracing the historical foundational structure, to which all religious relations were established by the Lord. The general rule (Kalal) of Romans 12:1-2 could only be understood by examining the historical foundation on which all faith and practice are founded, the specifications (Perat). The perfect example of this reality was and is none other than Jesus the Messiah, who thought it not beneath himself to live his life by the will of God even unto death.
The Lord’s idea of a nation was rooted in his will. The moral and the ceremonial instructions are equally binding for both represent the will of God, and when implemented revelation was always the result. Paul, confronted with the same task Moses had at Mt. Sinai, brings the people into relationship with a Holy God to fulfill his will.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Bauer, Walter. A Greek -English Lexicon of the New Testament. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1979.
Blackman, Philip. Mishnayoth, Oder Nezikin. Vol. IV. New York: Judaic Press. New York, 1963.
Brown, Francis F., Driver, S.R., and Briggs. The Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
Dalman, Gustav. ed., The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels: A Hebrew/English Translation. Mansfield, MO: Vine of David, 2011.
Drazin, Israel, and Wagner, Stanley M. Onkelos on The Torah: Understanding the Bible Text: Leviticus. Jerusalem: Gefen Publishing House, 2011.
Ervin, Howard M. Theology of the Old Testament. Tulsa, OK: Oral Roberts University, 1990.
Hasel, Gerhard. Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate. Grand Rapids, MI: William B. Eerdman’s Publishing Company, 1972.
Kaiser, Walter C. A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age Through the Jewish Wars. Nashville, TN: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1998.
McDonald, William V. A Hebrew Text in Greek Dress: A Comparison and Contrast between Jewish and Hellenistic Thought. Austin, TX: New Life Ministries Inc, 2014.
Roberts, Matis. Trei Asar: A New Translation with a Commentary Anthologized from Talmudic, Midrashic, and Rabbinic Sources: The Twelve Prophets. Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Jonah. Artscroll Tanach Series. New York: Mesorah Publications, 1995.
Scherman, Nosson and Goldwurm, Hersh, trans., Vayikra/Leviticus: ArtScroll Tanach Series. New York: Mesorah Publications, 2003.
Scherman, Nosson and Zlotowiz, Meir. The Chumash: The Stone Edition, Vayikra/Leviticus. The Artscroll Series. New York: Mesorah Publications, 2013.
Young, Brad. Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles. Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson Publishers, 1997.
[1] Gustav Dalman, ed., The Delitzsch Hebrew Gospels: A Hebrew/English Translation (Mansfield, MO: Vine of David, 2011), 353.
[2] Brad H. Young, Paul the Jewish Theologian: A Pharisee among Christians, Jews, and Gentiles (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1997), 2. Paul calls himself a Pharisee. We should listen to what Paul tells us about himself. In fact, there is no evidence anywhere in the New Testament that he departed from his firm convictions as a Pharisee. Paul was a Jewish theologian who anchored his beliefs in the Hebrew Bible and the teaching of his eminent mentors in Jerusalem. He is a Hebrew of the Hebrews rather than a Hellenist of the Greeks.
[3] Gerhard F. Hasel, Old Testament Theology: Basic Issues in the Current Debate (Grand Rapids, Mich: Eerdmans, 1972), 37. The distinction between what a text meant and what a text means is at the core of the most fundamental problem of OT theology, because “what it meant” is not simply discovering the meaning of the Biblical text within its own canonical Biblical context; it is historical reconstruction.
[4] Hasel, 146. To the Christian “the history of Israel is not history of revelation.” “Thus the Old Testament is the presupposition of the New” and nothing more nor anything less. Bultmann argues for the complete theological discontinuity between the OT and NT. The relationship between both Testaments “is not theologically relevant at all.” Nonetheless this history has, according to him, a promissory character precisely because in the failure of the hopes centered around the covenant concept, in the failure of the rule of God and his people, it becomes clear that “the situation of the justified man arises only on the basis of this miscarriage [Scheitern],” 147.
[5] William V. McDonald, A Hebrew Text in Greek Dress: A Comparison and Contrast between Jewish and Hellenistic Thought (Austin, TX: NewLife Ministries, 2014), 149. A contemporary Hebraic translation of Matthew 5:7 might better read: Blessed are those who are forgiving, for they shall be forgiven.”149.
[6] Israel Drazin and Stanley M. Wagner, eds., Onkelos on The Torah: Understanding the Bible Text: Leviticus (Jerusalem: Gefen , 2011), xxix. Since the general population thinks that they need to perform some kind of exculpatory act to remove sin, they can do this through the sacrifice, and especially by the requirement that the guilty party place his hands upon the sacrificial beast and verbalize his wrongdoing;he will imagine that by doing this his guilt is being transferred to the animal.
[7] Matis,Roberts, ArtScroll Tanach Series, Trei Asar: The Twelve Prophets Vol. 1: Hosea, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, Jonah (New York: Mesorah , 1995) , 29. “Thus, in exchange for your commitment to righteousness and justice, I will bestow upon you the gifts of benevolence and mercy. For if you act justly with your fellow man, I, in turn, will deal justly with the downtrodden and have mercy upon them. And for acting righteously beyond the letter of the law, I, too, will be benevolent with you to a degree far exceeding that which you earn with your merit. In exchange for your faith in Me and My Torah, upon which is based your commitment to following My statutes, I will reveal My presence to you in a manner that will allow you to actually Know Me, beyond the shadow of a doubt, so that you will no longer require blind Faith in order to serve Me.”
[8] Drazin and Wagner, Onkelos, xxvi. The sacrificial acts, such as the slaughtering and the placing of one’s hands on the animal, have a powerful psychological impact upon the person who is making the offering and prompt him to realize the significance of his life and misdeed.
[9] Drazin and Wagner, Onkelos, 5. The sages generally translate it either as “burnt offering,” because it is totally consumed on the altar, or as “elevated offering,” because it completely “ascends” to heaven, or because the offering is brought when sinful thoughts arise (“go up”) in one’s mind.
[10] Nosson Scherman and Hersh Goldwurm, trans., Vayikra/Leviticus, ArtScroll Tanach Series (New York: Mesorah: 2003), 51.
[11] Francis Brown, Samuel Driver, and Charles Briggs, eds., Brown-Driver-Briggs Hebrew and English Lexicon: (Peabody, Mass: Hendrickson, 1997), 953.
[12] Walter C. Kaiser, Jr, A History of Israel: From the Bronze Age through the Jewish Wars (Nashville, Tenn.: Broadman and Holman Publishers, 1998), 1- 2.
[13] “That I should be the minister of Jesus Christ to the Gentiles, ministering the gospel of God, that the offering up of the Gentiles might be acceptable, being sanctified by the Holy Ghost.” The NIV/KJV Parallel Bible, Romans (Zondervan: Grand Rapids, Mich., 1985), 1412.
[14] Walter Bauer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Chicago: The University of Chicago, 1979), 476.
[15] Drazin and Wagner, Onkelos, xxiii. The prophets were explaining that God accepts sacrifices only when they are combined with proper conduct…The Midrash Sifra 9 declare, “It does not matter whether a man brings a large offering or a small one provided that he directs his heart to heaven.” This assertion could be hinting that God does not want sacrifices, only proper behavior, xxiii.
[16] Drazin and Wagner, Onkelos, 2. Instead, the translation usually simply repeats the biblical word, as here for Korban, “offering,” and later for nouns such as olah, discussed in verse 3, which is usually rendered “burnt offering” in English. Bechor Schor writes that by stating “If a person brings…an offering,” the Bible allows the offering of non-Jewish sacrifices in the Tabernacle and the later Temple, as stated in the Babylonian Talmud, Nazir 62a., 3.
[17]Scherman and Goldwurm, Artscroll Tanach Series Vayikra/Leviticus, 49.
[18] Nosson Scheman and Meir Zlotowiz, The Chumash: The Stone Edition, Vayikra/Leviticus. The Artscroll Series (New York: Mesorah, 2013), 3. R’ Hirsch comments that the name derives from its purpose, which is to raise its owner from the status of sinner and bring him to a state of spiritual elevation.
[19] Howard M Ervin, Theology of the Old Testament. Sacrificial Worship: (Tulsa: Oral Roberts University, 1990) “the commonest expression for making atonement is Kipper, cover over, pacify, make propitiation.Underlying all these offerings there is the conception that the persons offering are covered by that which is regarded as sufficient and satisfactory by Yahweh (Liv. 16:30)
[20] Scheman and Zlotowiz, Artscroll Tanach series, 279. Hirsch notes that raycha, odor, and nichoah, pleasing, are listed by the Talmud as two separate requirements (Zevachim 46b). He interprets raycha as the sort of knowledge converged by the sense of smell: a suggestion from afar. Thus raycha indicates a hint of a person’s intentions. Nichoah indicates total compliance with the will of God. This raycha nichoah means: a hint that the bringer of the offering is prepared to comply with God’s will. This is the only time in Scripture where the positive article He the is used in connection with an offering. This is to indicate that Noah’s sacrifice was in a class of its own because he was the forerunner of reborn human life and was now dedicating the entire future of the race to God’s service.
[21] Philip Blackman, Mishnayoth, Oder Nezikin. Vol. IV, (New York: Judaic, 1963), 498.
[22] Nosson Scherman and Meir Zlotowiz ArtScroll Tanach Series, Bereishis, 145. “For Abel took of the very best firstlings of his flock. He who brings the first and the best, places his relationship to God in the foreground; for him this relationship is the first and most important. Everything else in life is secondary (Hirch), 145.
[23] Scherman and Zlotowiz, ArtScroll, Bereishis, 145. “The verse does not read to Abel’s offering’: Able himself was pleasing and so was his offering (Sforno); for as Hak’sav V’haKabballah explains, it was not merely the better quality of Abel’s offering that made his sacrifice more acceptable, and Cain’s less; it was their conduct that was decisive, 145-146.
