Romans 12:1–2 and the Doctrine of Sanctification, Part 3

Reproduced with permission from DBSJ 11 (2006). Read the series.

Dedication in Romans 12:1–2

Romans 12:1–2 begins the final section of the letter. Paul shifts his focus from instruction to exhortation, from what we might call the indicative—what God has done for us—to the imperative—what we are to do in response.43 Moo explains, “If we take to heart the truth of the gospel that [the apostle] has presented, we will have a transformed worldview that cannot but affect our lives in uncounted ways. Paul has made this clear already in chapter 6, where he shows how our union with Christ in his death and resurrection leads to our ‘walking in newness of life’ (v. 4).”44 Now in this final section, Paul urges Christians to manifest the power of the gospel in specific areas of day-to-day life.

Those who embrace the gospel, who are united to Christ, are rescued from the devastating effects of sin. Believers are justified, declared righteous in God’s sight, and thus have a secure hope for salvation from the wrath to come. They have been delivered from the penalty of sin and are no longer under condemnation (5:1). But, as Romans 6 makes clear, all those who have been delivered from the penalty of sin have just as certainly been delivered from its dominion. Union with Christ in his death and resurrection provides for both justification and sanctification. Paul’s commission as an apostle was to “call people from among all the Gentiles to the obedience that comes from faith” (1:5, NIV). “Jesus Christ is the Lord; and thus to believe in him means at the same time a commitment to obey him.”45

Beginning in chapter 12, it is this obedience, made possible by the transforming power of the gospel, that Paul calls upon believers to render. “The ‘imperative’ of a transformed life is therefore not an optional ‘second step’ after we embrace the gospel,”46 but instead has its roots in our initial response to the gospel itself. What Paul calls upon believers to do in Romans 12:1–2, the imperative of the gospel, is an indispensable element of the gospel; it is a natural and expected result of the gospel. Romans 12:1–2 can be viewed as essentially summarizing the demands of the gospel for believers living in a secular world.47 What does God want from those of us who are the recipients of his grace? Paul tells us that God demands our transformation—an ongoing transformation that is from the inside out so that we might conform ourselves to the will of God. While it is all too easy for believers to be satisfied at times with only superficial, outward obedience to God’s will, what God requires is nothing less than a continual, lifelong transformation of our character into the image of his beloved Son.

The Believer’s Response to God’s Grace Should Be to Offer Himself as a Sacrifice to God (v. 1)

Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is your spiritual service of worship.

Paul begins with an exhortation: “I urge you, brethren.” It is agreed that the verb translated “urge” (παρακαλέω) in the context of our passage has a meaning somewhere between “request” and “command,” between a mere beseeching or urging and a more authoritative exhortation.48 Most believe that Paul’s emphasis lies closer to exhortation. Cranfield argues the verb “has all the urgency and earnestness that it has when it is used in the sense beseech, but also something more—the note of authority. It denotes the authoritative summons to obedience issued in the name of the gospel.”49 The inferential conjunction “therefore” (οὖν50) and the phrase “by the mercies of God” tie the exhortation of v. 1 (and those that follow in 12:3–15:13) to the theology of chapters 1–11.51 The preposition “by” indicates the ground or basis of Paul’s exhortation and thus could be translated “because of” or “in view of.”52 The plural “mercies” may refer to the different concrete expressions of God’s mercy in the preceding chapters, but it is more likely that the plural Greek term (οἰκτιρμῶν) is due to the influence of the LXX, where it always appears in the plural as the translation of a Hebrew term (רַחֲמִים), which only appears in the plural.53 Thus, Paul’s exhortation for the believer to offer himself as a sacrifice to God has its basis in the mercy of God that has been so wonderfully set forth in the preceding chapters. As Stott rightly observes, “For eleven chapters Paul has been unfolding the mercies of God. Indeed, the gospel is precisely God’s mercy to inexcusable and undeserving sinners, in giving his Son to die for them, in justifying them freely by faith, in sending them his life-giving spirit, and in making them his children.”54 God’s mercy that has been manifested in the Holy Spirit’s work of inward renewal or regeneration does, in fact, impel us toward the obedience that the gospel demands.55 But it is not automatic, so Paul exhorts us “to present [our] bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God.” Moo observes, “We experience God’s mercy as a power that exerts a total and all-encompassing claim over us (5:21). It is therefore entirely fitting that our response is to be one that is equally total and all-encompassing: the presentation of our entire persons as a sacrifice to God.”56

The heart of Paul’s exhortation is for believers “to present [their] bodies” to God.” The word “present” (παρίστημι), when used with the word “sacrifice” (θυσία), was a technical phrase in Paul’s day for offering a sacrifice.57 Over the years, advocates of Holiness and Keswick theology have attempted to support their view that believers must come to a crisis, once-for-all act of dedication by appealing to the fact that the Greek verb translated “present” (παραστῆσαι) is in the aorist tense.58 For instance Evan Hopkins, who is considered the formative theologian of Keswick, commonly stressed this point in his speaking and writing.59 And this emphasis was continued among evangelicals in the twentieth century.

The familiar exhortation found in Romans 12:1, to “present” ourselves to God, is the same word [as in Rom 6:13] in the aorist tense, again a definite act of yielding to God.60

Initial dedication (Rom 12:1–2). Initial dedication is a crisis and once-for-all matter…. The tense is aorist (which indicates an unrepeated event).61

The presentation of Romans 12:1 is viewed as a once-and-for-all presentation because of the tense of the verb in the Greek.62

Numerous other examples could be cited.63

This interpretation represents a misunderstanding and abuse of the Greek aorist tense.64 No Greek grammar has ever suggested that the aorist tense means once-for-all action though it was once a popular and widespread misconception among pastors and teachers. This once-for-all idea of the aorist makes nonsense out of countless texts. For instance, when Paul told the Corinthians to “glorify God in your body” (1 Cor 6:2), the aorist imperative “glorify” does not mean that the apostle only wanted them to do it one time. Neither does the aorist imperative “preach” indicate that Paul wished Timothy to “preach the word” (2 Tim 4:2) only once. More recent Greek grammars generally have taken special pains to correct this abuse of the aorist so that the teaching of a once-for-all act of dedication in texts like Romans 12:1 is not as common today,65 though it is still not unusual to read that v. 1 calls for a decisive act of consecration based on the aorist tense.66 In actuality, the aorist tense is the least significant tense exegetically, and thus Paul’s exhortation for the Roman believers “to present [their] bodies” to God” does not suggest by the tense of the verb that Paul is calling for a crisis, once-for-all act of dedication, or even a decisive one.67 And there is nothing in the context of Romans 12 itself to support such a view. As we will see in v. 2, the context suggests just the opposite. Paul simply exhorts us to make this offering; he says nothing in v. 1 about how often it needs to be done.68

Notes

43 Douglas J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), p. 744; Everett F. Harrison, “Romans,” in vol. 10 of The Expositor’s Bible Commentary, ed. Frank E. Gaebelein (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 126; Grant R. Osborne, Romans, IVP New Testament Commentary Series (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2004), p. 323.

44 Moo, Romans, p. 744.

45 Ibid.

46 Ibid., p. 745.

47 David L. Olford, “Romans 12:1–2: The Gospel and Renewal,” in Faces of Renewal: Studies in Honor of Stanley M. Horton, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1988), p. 21.

48 BDAG, s.v. “παρακαλέω,” pp. 764–65; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1975, 1979), 2:597; Moo, Romans, pp. 748–49.

49 Romans, 2:597. Also, Moo, Romans, p. 749; Thomas R. Schreiner, Romans, Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), p. 642; Osborne, Romans, p. 318; Olford, “Romans 12:1–2: The Gospel and Renewal,” p. 24.

50 BDAG, s.v. “οὖν,” p. 736; Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1996), p. 673.

51 C. K. Barrett, The Epistle to the Romans, Harper’s New Testament Commentaries (New York: Harper & Row, 1957), p. 230; James D. G. Dunn, Romans, 2 vols., Word Biblical Commentary (Dallas: Word Books, 198), p. 708; Leon Morris, The Epistle to the Romans, Pillar New Testament Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), p. 432; Osborne, Romans, p. 318; Moo, Romans, p. 748; Cranfield, Romans, 2:595; Harrison, “Romans,” p. 127.

52 Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “dιά,” by Albrecht Oepke, 2:67–68; Moo, Romans, p. 749; Cranfield, Romans, 2:596; Schreiner, Romans, p. 643.

53 HALOT, s.v. “רַחֲמִים,” 3:1218-19; New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology, s.v. “Mercy, Compassion,” by Hans-Helmut Esser, 2:598; Dunn, Ro- mans, 2:709; Moo, Romans, p. 749; Harrison, “Romans,” p. 127; Cranfield, Romans, 2:596;

54 John Stott, Romans (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 1994), p. 320.

55 55Moo, Romans, p. 750.

56 Ibid.

57 BDAG, s.v. “θυσία,” p. 463; Cranfield, Romans, 2:598; Dunn, Romans, 2:709; Olford, “Romans 12:1–2,” p. 25. The infinitive παραστῆσαι is used here in indirect discourse following παρακαλῶ to represent an original imperative (Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 604).

58 Randy Maddox, “The Use of the Aorist Tense in Holiness Exegesis,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 16 (Fall 1981): 106–18.

59 Evan H. Hopkins, The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life (reprint ed.; Philadelphia: Sunday School Times, 1954), pp. 66–67. See also Alexander Smellie, Evan Hopkins. A Memoir (London: Marshall Brothers, n.d.), pp. 95–96.

60 John F. Walvoord, The Holy Spirit, 3rd ed. (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1958), pp. 197–98. See also Lewis S. Chafer, Major Bible Themes, rev. John F. Walvoord (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1974), p. 118.

61 Charles C. Ryrie, The Holy Spirit (Chicago: Moody Press, 1965), p. 96. To be fair, Ryrie has removed this language from his updated edition (The Holy Spirit Chicago: Moody Press, 1997], p. 160).

62 J. Dwight Pentecost, Pattern for Maturity (Chicago: Moody Press, 1966), p. 129.

63 William D. Lawrence, “The New Testament Doctrine of the Lordship of Christ” (Th.D. dissertation, Dallas Theological Seminary, 1968), p. 197; Warren W. Wiersbe, Be Right. An Expository Study of Romans (Wheaton, IL: Victor Books, 1977), p. 138; Curtis Vaughan and Bruce Corley, Romans (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1976), p. 137; Harrison, “Romans,” p. 127.

64 See the corrective by Frank Stagg, “The Abused Aorist,” Journal of Biblical Literature 91 (June 1972): 222–31; and D. A. Carson, Exegetical Fallacies, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1996) pp. 68–73.

65 E.g., Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 557.

66 E.g., David J. MacLeod says, “The tense of the verb (aorist) points to a decisive action. The believer is called to an act of consecration that is ‘decisive, crucial, [and] instantaneous’” (“The Consecrated Christian and Conformity to the World,” Emmaus Journal 4 [Winter 1995]: 104); also Robert H. Mounce, Romans, New American Commentary (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 1995), p. 231, 232.

67 “The aorist tense ‘presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a whole,…without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence’” (Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 554).

68 Moo, Romans, p. 750.

wcombs Bio


Bill Combs serves as Academic Dean as well as Professor of New Testament at Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, where he has been teaching since 1983. He earned his BA at Tennessee Temple University, and his MDiv and ThM degrees at Temple Baptist Theological Seminary. He holds a ThD from Grace Theological Seminary. Dr. Combs has also served in pastoral ministry. He and his wife Pansy are members of Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI.

855 reads
3631 reads

There are 19 Comments

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

The most important part of this installment, and maybe the entire article, is the discussion of "present" ... and footnotes 60-68.

The aorist isn't what many think it is... and does not support the idea that there is a "one time surrender" in Rom 12.1.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

T Howard's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

The most important part of this installment, and maybe the entire article, is the discussion of "present" ... and footnotes 60-68.

The aorist isn't what many think it is... and does not support the idea that there is a "one time surrender" in Rom 12.1.

This highlights the importance of going to seminary and learning the original languages. This nonsense is still found in commentaries today.

TylerR's picture

Editor

But  ... but ... Lenski understood aorists that way ... !

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

It's really more of a logical error than a grammatical one. I'm still persuaded that the aorist is basically punctilliar and doesn't describe onging action, but it doesn't follow that if you describe an act with a "happening once" verb, the action in question can only happen once or should only happen once.

You can see this in English just as well as Greek.

I say to my son, "You to make your make your bed."

He could say, the next day, "Well, Dad, you didn't say 'you ought to be making your bed,' you said 'you ought to make' which is a one time action! I did that yesterday."

To quote Combs--I detect dry humor there--"Examples could be multiplied." 

So, an aorist might describe something that can happen only once (e.g., "Jesus died on the cross") but the punctilliarness/non-continuousness of the verb doesn't convey necessary one-timeness.

 

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I did my 1st year grammar with Mounce's text, and he defined the aorist as "an undefined action occurring sometime in the past." He stressed that it is not necessarily a once for all or punctilliar action. Wallace's little graphics in his intermediate grammar are also very helpful to distinguish between, say, imperfect and aorist. I don't know what the older grammars say about the aorist (e.g. Dana and Mantey). 

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

Nord Zootman's picture

Dana and Mantey refer to the aorist as punctiliar but then explains "The fundamental significance of the aorist is to denote action simply as occurring, without reference to its progress.... The aorist signifies nothing as to completeness, but simply presents the action as attained."

RajeshG's picture

The following verse has 2 aorist verbs that signify one-time actions that are never repeated:

KJV Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

BGT Colossians 1:13 ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ,

Don Johnson's picture

"The aorist normally views the action as a whole, taking no interest in the internal workings of the action. It describes the action in summary fashion, without focusing on the beginning or end of the action specifically. This is by far the most common use of the aorist, especially with the indicative mood."

Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics - Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Zondervan Publishing House and Galaxie Software, 1996), 557.

Generally speaking the aorist views the action in totality, as completed. Col 1.13 describes our complete deliverance, from its beginning in a past action to its present progress through sanctification and ultimate victory in the resurrection. The WHOLE thing is in view. The same can be said of our translation into the kingdom.

Maranatha!
Don Johnson
Jer 33.3

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

RajeshG wrote:

The following verse has 2 aorist verbs that signify one-time actions that are never repeated:

KJV Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

BGT Colossians 1:13 ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ,

It's not the aorist that's telling us it's a one time never repeated action. As I've already explained. It's context. In other words, we know we're delivered once because of other passages, not because of the aorist aspect of the verb. 

A dozen or more examples just like that one could be listed, but what they are is examples of aorist verbs being used in sentences that describe one time, nonrepeatable action (and even the sentences depend on larger context). It's, again, not the aorist that supplies the one-timeness.

It looks like autocorrect hacked my earlier example... Or my brain did. It should go like this...

You can see this in English just as well as Greek.

I say to my son, "You ought to make your bed."

He could say, the next day, "Well, Dad, you didn't say 'you ought to be making your bed,' you said 'you ought to make' which is a one time action! I did that yesterday."

The point is that even if aorists are punctilliar, it isn't valid to infer that one time action is intended, based on that. It's bad reasoning, not bad grammar.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

RajeshG's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

 

RajeshG wrote:

 

The following verse has 2 aorist verbs that signify one-time actions that are never repeated:

KJV Colossians 1:13 Who hath delivered us from the power of darkness, and hath translated us into the kingdom of his dear Son:

BGT Colossians 1:13 ὃς ἐρρύσατο ἡμᾶς ἐκ τῆς ἐξουσίας τοῦ σκότους καὶ μετέστησεν εἰς τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ υἱοῦ τῆς ἀγάπης αὐτοῦ,

 

 

It's not the aorist that's telling us it's a one time never repeated action. As I've already explained. It's context. In other words, we know we're delivered once because of other passages, not because of the aorist aspect of the verb. 

A dozen or more examples just like that one could be listed, but what they are is examples of aorist verbs being used in sentences that describe one time, nonrepeatable action (and even the sentences depend on larger context). It's, again, not the aorist that supplies the one-timeness.

It looks like autocorrect hacked my earlier example... Or my brain did. It should go like this...

You can see this in English just as well as Greek.

I say to my son, "You ought to make your bed."

He could say, the next day, "Well, Dad, you didn't say 'you ought to be making your bed,' you said 'you ought to make' which is a one time action! I did that yesterday."

The point is that even if aorists are punctilliar, it isn't valid to infer that one time action is intended, based on that. It's bad reasoning, not bad grammar.

I didn't make any claims that we know that it is a one-time action because the verbs are aorists. I merely said that these are examples of aorist verbs that do signify something that is a one-time action.

RajeshG's picture

It is worth noting that the infinitive in 12:1 is aorist tense, but the infinitive (and the imperatives) in 12:2 is present tense:

BGT Romans 12:1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν· 2  καὶ μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε τῷ αἰῶνι τούτῳ, ἀλλὰ μεταμορφοῦσθε τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς εἰς τὸ δοκιμάζειν ὑμᾶς τί τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ, τὸ ἀγαθὸν καὶ εὐάρεστον καὶ τέλειον. 

Had the Spirit used a present tense infinitive in 12:1, how would what would have been communicated be different from what He chose to say?

Aaron Blumer's picture

EditorAdmin

I merely said that these are examples of aorist verbs that do signify something that is a one-time action.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but this seems to be my point: the verb is not what is doing the signifying of one-time action.

Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.

Nord Zootman's picture

Aaron Blumer wrote:

the verb is not what is doing the signifying of one-time action.

Exactly - The aorist does not signify any one type of action. It is viewing the action as a whole, but doesn't in and of itself tell us if the action was a one-time event or continuous, etc.

TylerR's picture

Editor

This is why Mounce is the man - he calls the aorist an "undefined action occurring sometime in the past." It might be punctiliar. It might not. Context!

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

T Howard's picture

Not to belabor this issue, but guys like Porter and Decker have convincingly demonstrated that the Greek verb tense-form is primarily about aspect not time. The aorist communicates perfective aspect, not an action "occurring sometime in the past." The perfective aspect describes the action as a complete and undifferentiated process. This is regardless of how in actual fact the action occurs, that is, whether it is momentary or lasts a significant length of time.

In Greek, the aorist is what some have called the "default" tense; that is, it is the tense chosen when there is no reason to choose another. While the aorist is often used in narrative to describe past events, it is also used for present action (aka dramatic aorist), future action (aka futuristic or proleptic aorist), action occurring omnitemporally (aka gnomic aorist), and action that is timeless (e.g. parables).

To determine the time of the action, a variety of contextual features (often called deictic indicators) must be analyzed: references to person, place and time, and discourse features.

TylerR's picture

Editor

I was waiting for someone to bring up verbal aspect. Now, it has happened ...

Tyler is a pastor in Olympia, WA and works in State government. He's the author of the book What's It Mean to Be a Baptist?

T Howard's picture

TylerR wrote:

I was waiting for someone to bring up verbal aspect. Now, it has happened ...

Tyler, you have to keep up with the latest Greek linguist developments, Brother. Mounce is so Twentieth Century. Smile

Larry's picture

Moderator

Not to belabor this issue, but guys like Porter and Decker have convincingly demonstrated that the Greek verb tense-form is primarily about aspect not time.

But not everyone is convinced by this. There are a few holes in it.

T Howard's picture

Larry wrote:

Not to belabor this issue, but guys like Porter and Decker have convincingly demonstrated that the Greek verb tense-form is primarily about aspect not time.

But not everyone is convinced by this. There are a few holes in it.

Of course, but that's the nature of academic linguistics. However, I would say that most of the guys writing grammars today do subscribe to some form of verbal aspect. They might not agree completely with Porter, but they certainly recognize that verbal aspect plays a much bigger part of the Greek tense-form and time is not as tied to tense-form as previously thought.

Help keep SI’s server humming. A few bucks makes a difference.