DBSJ 11 (2006): 3–24

ROMANS 12:1–2 AND THE DOCTRINE

OF SANCTIFICATION
by
William W. Combs1

R omans 12:1–2 is one of the most well-known texts of Scripture. Its

familiarity stems, I believe, from its perceived theological impor-
tance. This text is commonly viewed as having great import for the
Christian’s spiritual life, and thus it is one of the passages most often
memorized by children in Sunday School and teenagers in the youth
group.
Our text is seen by many as being foundational to the doctrine of
sanctification because it calls for the believer’s dedication or consecra-
tion. It has been argued that progressive sanctification cannot com-
mence in the believer’s life until he has experienced a crisis act of
dedication or consecration. For instance Ryrie says, “There is perhaps
no more important matter in relation to the spiritual life than dedica-
tion.”2 “Before any lasting progress can be made on the road of spiri-
tual living, the believer must be a dedicated person…. It is the basic
foundation for sanctification.”3 Stanford concurs, “God asks us to pre-
sent our bodies as living sacrifices to Him (Rom 12:1). Until we have
done this, there is nothing else we can do.”4 Thiessen agrees, “Where
the initial surrender has not been adhered to, there is need first of a
definite presentation of the life to God before practical holiness is pos-
sible (Rom 6:13; 12:1f.).”5
This teaching of a crisis act of dedication has become gospel when
it comes to the doctrine of sanctification in many churches and Chris-
tian schools. In just one sermon, pastors and evangelists are able to
cure what is wrong with many Christians and most every teenager, by
1
Dr. Combs is Academic Dean and Professor of New Testament at Detroit Bap-
tist Theological Seminary in Allen Park, MI.
2
Charles C. Ryrie, Balancing the Christian Life (Chicago: Moody Press, 1969),
p. 75.
3
Ibid., p. 186.
4
Miles J. Stanford, The Complete Green Letters (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1983),
p. 38.
5
Henry C. Thiessen, Lectures in Systematic Theology, rev. Vernon D. Doerksen
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1979), p. 286.
4 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

simply persuading them to come forward and dedicate their lives to

Christ and thus begin the life of victory over sin, making Christ Lord
of their lives.
I will argue in this essay that while Romans 12:1–2 is a significant
text for the doctrine of sanctification, it has often been misused and its
true emphasis has frequently been misunderstood. First, I will give a
historical overview of the interpretation of our text, showing how it
came to occupy such a prominent place in many presentations of sanc-
tification. Then I will move on to an exegesis of the passage in an at-
tempt to set forth its true significance.

HISTORY OF INTERPRETATION
If we examine the writings of the church fathers, the Reformers,
and of Christians before the 19th century, we find our text receives no
special attention as it relates to the doctrine of sanctification. How
then did it come to its present place of importance? Romans 12:1–2
gained its position of theological significance primarily because of the
teaching and writing of a 19th century Methodist layperson named
Phoebe Palmer (1807–1874). She developed what is called her “altar
theology,” which was built upon the idea of dedication in texts like
Romans 12:1–2.6
In 1835 Phoebe Palmer and her sister began what became known
as the Tuesday Meetings for the Promotion of Holiness. These meet-
ings started with a group of Methodist ladies who were seeking the
experience of entire sanctification as had been taught by the founder of
Methodism, John Wesley (1703–1791). Wesley came up with the
novel idea of a second transforming work of grace, distinct from and
ordinarily subsequent to the new birth or justification. This new and
distinctive doctrine of sanctification was given different names, includ-
ing Christian perfection, perfect love, entire sanctification, full salva-
tion, and the second blessing.7 Wesley said this work happens instantly
by a simple act of faith.8 This crisis of entire sanctification eliminates
all sinful desires from the heart, destroys inbred moral depravity, and
delivers from outward transgressions of the law. Positively, entire sanc-
tification effects complete purity of intentions, tempers, and actions,

6
Phoebe Palmer, The Way of Holiness with Notes by the Way (reprint of 50th
American ed.; Salem, OH: Schmul Publishing, 2003), p. 43; Charles E. White, The
Beauty of Holiness: Phoebe Palmer as Theologian, Revivalist, Feminist, and Humanitarian
(Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1986), p. 140.
7
Wesley’s viewpoint is set forth in his Plain Account of Christian Perfection. The
first edition was published in 1766 and the 4th and final edition in 1777. See The
Works of John Wesley, 14 vols., 3rd ed. (reprint of 1872 ed.; Grand Rapids: Baker,
1978), 11:366–446.
8
Ibid., 11:446.
 Romans 12:1–2 5

stimulates perfect love of God and neighbor, and restores the moral
image of God in the soul.9 Wesley believed this sanctified Christian is
so far perfect as not to commit sin. Admittedly, however, by sin
Wesley only included voluntary transgressions of known law, not in-
voluntary transgressions, which he refused to call sin.10
Wesley himself never settled on a particular method of receiving
entire sanctification, the second blessing. It was his followers who ul-
timately developed a definitive methodology, one based on a single
crisis experience. Though Wesley’s doctrine of sanctification was
modified to some extent by his immediate followers, chiefly John
Fletcher (1729–1785) and Adam Clarke (1762–1832), it was Phoebe
Palmer’s refinements that most influenced Methodist views on sancti-
fication in the mid-19th century and ultimately became the basis of
the Holiness Movement.11 Her theology was adopted by Holiness de-
nominations such as the Wesleyan Methodists, the Free Methodists,
the Church of the Nazarene, the Church of God (Anderson, Indiana),
the Pilgrim Holiness Church, as well as the Salvation Army and the
Keswick Movement in England.”12
Phoebe Palmer’s struggle to obtain entire sanctification was long
and difficult.13 Her own difficulty was what undoubtedly led her to
devise a simple prescription for obtaining this second work of grace.
She called this “the shorter way” to holiness and ultimately decided
that this was “the only way” to obtain the blessing.14 This “shorter
way” became known as her “altar theology” and involved a threefold
process: entire consecration, faith, and testimony. Consecration and
faith are necessary to obtain the blessing and testimony is necessary to
retain it.15
Palmer developed her “altar theology” by means of some clever
exegesis—if one can call it exegesis. She began with Jesus’ statement in
Matthew 23:19 that the altar sanctifies the gift (“You blind men,

9
Bruce Demarest, The Cross and Salvation (Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 1977),
p. 391.
10
Works of John Wesley, 11:396.
11
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Palmer, Phoebe Worral,” by C. E.
White, p. 861; Charles E. Jones, Perfectionist Persuasion; The Holiness Movement and
American Methodism, 1867–1936 (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, 1974), p. 5.
12
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Palmer, Phoebe Worral,” p. 861;
Melvin E. Dieter, “The Wesleyan View,” in Five Views on Sanctification (Grand Rap-
ids: Zondervan, 1987), p. 39.
13
Harold E. Raser, Phoebe Palmer: Her Life and Thought (Lewiston, NY: Edwin
Mellen, 1987), pp. 34–47.
14
Palmer, Way of Holiness, pp. 14, 44; White, Beauty of Holiness, p. 130.
15
Kevin T. Lowery, “A Fork in the Wesleyan Road: Phoebe Palmer and the Ap-
propriation of Christian Perfection,” Wesleyan Theological Journal 36 (Fall 2001): 193.
6 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

which is more important, the offering, or the altar that sanctifies the
offering?”).16 Then Palmer observed that Exodus 29:37 says that what-
ever touches the altar is holy (“For seven days you shall make atone-
ment for the altar and consecrate it; then the altar shall be most holy,
and whatever touches the altar shall be holy.”).17 Since the altar sancti-
fies the gift, whatever touches the altar is holy. And, according to He-
brews 13:10, for NT believers Christ is their altar (“We have an altar
from which those who serve the tabernacle have no right to eat.”).18
Therefore, if one places himself on the altar, that person will be holy.
And the prescription for accomplishing this is found in Romans 12:1
(“Therefore I urge you, brethren, by the mercies of God, to present
your bodies a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God….”).19 One
places oneself on the altar by a once-for-all consecration involving a
complete surrender to God, especially one’s will.20 “Thus entire conse-
cration guarantees entire sanctification.”21
Phoebe Palmer’s “altar theology” also influenced those who were
not brought up in Methodist circles. Individuals like William E.
Boardman (1810–1886) and Hannah Whitall Smith (1832–1911)
embraced much of Palmer’s theology and spread it outside of Method-
ist circles in what became known as the Higher Life Movement.
Boardman, a Presbyterian minister, became a frequent attender at
Palmer’s “Tuesday Meetings for the Promotion of Holiness” and in
1858 wrote his influential The Higher Christian Life.22 Mrs. Smith
along with her husband, Robert Pearsall Smith (1827–1899), also
spread the Phoebe Palmer’s Holiness theology. Mrs. Smith is chiefly
known for her widely read volume promoting Holiness theology, The
Christian’s Secret of a Happy Life (1875).23 Higher Life teachers moved
away from the Wesleyan view that sin is eradicated from the believer in
the second blessing, preferring to speak of the believer’s dominion or
victory over sin that results in deliverance from all conscious sinning.24

16
Way of Holiness, p. 43. Unless otherwise noted, all Scripture quotations are from
the New American Standard Bible, 1995 edition.
17
Way of Holiness, p. 43.
18
Ibid.
19
Ibid.
20
White, Beauty of Holiness, p. 136.
21
Ibid., p. 140.
22
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Boardman, William Edwin,” by W.
S. Gunter, p. 170.
23
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Smith, Hannah Whitall,” by R. A.
Tucker, p. 1096.
24
B. B. Warfield, Perfectionism (Philadelphia: Presbyterian and Reformed, 1958),
p. 238. This is a condensed edition of vol 2. of Warfield’s Studies in Perfectionism
 Romans 12:1–2 7

It is universally acknowledged that the Keswick or Victorious Life

Movement was the immediate successor to the Higher Life Move-
ment.25 Historically, Keswick began as an outgrowth of a series of
breakfast meetings designed to promote Holiness teaching during
Dwight L. Moody’s 1873 London campaign.26 These meetings were
led by Robert and Hannah Smith, and included other Holiness leaders
like William E. Boardman and Asa Mahan (1799–1889). The spirit of
these meetings was continued by the Broadlands conference in 1874
and a meeting at Oxford a few weeks later. An even larger gathering
was held at Brighton from May 29 to June 7, 1875. Moody threw his
support behind it and said, “Let us lift up our hearts to seek earnestly a
blessing on the great Convention that is now being held in Brighton,
perhaps the most important meeting ever gathered.”27 One of the con-
verts to the Victorious Life at these meetings was Rev. T. D. Harford-
Battersby, Vicar of St. John’s, Keswick, a parish in the lake district of
northwest England. He organized a conference for July of 1875 that
was held in a tent on his church grounds with about three or four
hundred attending. Annual Keswick conferences have been held each
summer ever since.28
Keswick theology teaches that the average Christian is a carnal
Christian. He is justified but there is little or no sanctification, no
spiritual growth, no victory over sin in his life. He needs, as John
Wesley and Phoebe Palmer taught, a second, transforming work of
grace—the second blessing. This comes in a crisis act of dedication or
total surrender that is spoken of in Romans 12:1–2. For instance, Evan
Hopkins (1838–1918), who was a key leader at the Keswick Conven-
tion for forty consecutive years (1876–1915) and widely considered to
be “the theologian” of Keswick,29 insisted that the believer must “first

(New York: Oxford University Press, 1931).

25
J. C. Pollock, The Keswick Story: The Authorized History of the Keswick Conven-
tion (London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1964), pp. 12–46; Steven Barabas, So Great
Salvation: History and Message of the Keswick Convention (London: Marshall, Morgan
& Scott, 1952), pp. 15–27; Charles Price and Ian Randall, Transforming Keswick (Car-
lisle, Cumbria, UK: OM Publishing, 2000), pp. 14, 21–33; Biographical Dictionary of
Evangelicals, s.v. “Palmer, Phoebe Worrall,” by H. E. Raser, p. 503; Beacon Dictionary
of Theology, s.v. “Higher Life,” Melvin E. Dieter, p. 257; Dictionary of Christianity in
America, s.v. “Higher Christian Life,” by W. S. Gunter, p. 526. Dictionary of Christi-
anity in America, s.v. “Keswick Movement,” by B. L. Shelley, p. 613.
26
Pollock, The Keswick Story, pp. 18–19; Dictionary of Christianity in America,
s.v. “Keswick Movement,” p. 612.
27
Quoted in Barabas, So Great Salvation, p. 23.
28
David Bebbington suggests Keswick Conventions lost their distinctive
“Keswick” teaching in the 1960s (Holiness in Nineteenth-Century England [Carlisle,
Cumbria, UK: Paternoster Press, 2000], p. 90).
29
Herbert F. Stevenson, ed. Keswick’s Authentic Voice (Grand Rapids: Zondervan,
8 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

yield in a spirit of entire submission.”30 To prove his point Hopkins

exposits Romans 12:1, focusing on the once-for-all nature of the be-
liever’s consecration as demanded by the aorist tense of the verb “pre-
sent.”31
Keswick teaching was first spread in America through Moody’s
Northfield Conferences in Massachusetts.32 In 1910 Charles G.
Trumbull, the editor of the Sunday School Times, became a convert to
Keswick beliefs, and he used his editorial energies to promote Keswick
teaching in America. He along with his assistant at the Sunday School
Times, Robert C. McQuilkin (founded Columbia Bible College in
1923), began an “American Keswick” conference in 1913, which per-
manently settled at Keswick Grove, New Jersey in 1923.33 Numerous
well-known authors spread Keswick theology, including A. T. Pierson.
F. B. Meyer, Andrew Murray, H. C. G. Moule, W. H. Griffith Tho-
mas, C. I. Scofield, Lewis Sperry Chafer, J. Hudson Taylor. J. Oswald
Sanders, J. Robertson McQuilkin, Alan Redpath, Ruth Paxson, and
W. Ian Thomas.
Keswick theology was linked with the founding of a number of
evangelical Bible schools and missionary agencies, such as Moody Bible
Institute, Wheaton College, Columbia Bible College, Prairie Bible
Institute, and Dallas Theological Seminary.34 Books written by many
of the early faculty members of these schools helped spread this theol-
ogy into most of evangelicalism and fundamentalism.35 Though not
often recognized as such, Keswick, Higher Life, and Holiness teaching
that emphasizes the importance of total consecration as essential for
sanctification is still taught in numerous classrooms and heralded from
many pulpits.

1959), p. 16. Price and Randall call Hopkins the “formative theologian of Keswick”
(Transforming Keswick, p. 39).
30
Evan H. Hopkins, The Law of Liberty in the Spiritual Life, rev. ed. (Philadel-
phia: Sunday School Times, 1952), p. 66.
31
Ibid., p. 67. This is a common emphasis among Keswick speakers. For the same
argument by a Keswick speaker, based on the aorist tense in Rom 12:1, see J. Oswald
Sanders, Christ Indwelling and Enthroned (London: Marshall, Morgan & Scott, 1949),
p. 55.
32
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Keswick Movement,” p. 613.
33
George M. Marsden, Fundamentalism and American Culture (Oxford: Oxford
University Press, 1980), p. 96.
34
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Keswick Movement,” p. 613; Edwin
W. Tait, “The Cleansing Wave,” Christian History & Biography, Spring 2004, p. 25;
Dictionary of Christianity in America, s.v. “Chafer, Lewis Sperry,” by J. D. Hannah,
p. 238.
35
For example, Lewis Sperry Chafer, He That Is Spiritual, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids:
Zondervan, 1967).
 Romans 12:1–2 9

In a review of a somewhat recent volume comparing and contrast-

ing five common views of sanctification (Wesleyan, Keswick, Pentecos-
tal, Augustinian-Dispensational and Reformed), Turner is led to
conclude, “There may only be two views of sanctification presented in
this volume.”36 This is because the Wesleyan, Keswick, Pentecostal,
and Augustinian-Dispensational views, as presented, are in general
agreement, all emphasizing the requirement for total consecration. The
so-called Augustinian-Dispensational viewpoint presented by John
Walvoord, who followed Chafer as president and professor of theology
at Dallas Seminary, is misnamed since dispensationalism has nothing
to do per se with any particular view of sanctification, though it is of-
ten mistakenly identified with Keswick theology.37 Walvoord’s view, as
he himself is quick to admit, is essentially the same as Keswick.38 And
earlier Dallas professors like Chafer, Walvoord, and Ryrie were promi-
nent in spreading Keswick theology and the need for entire consecra-
tion in much of evangelicalism and fundamentalism in the twentieth
century.39 This emphasis on the requirement of entire consecration
from texts like Romans 12:1–2 was not limited to Dallas Seminary but
could be found throughout evangelicalism and fundamentalism.40 An-
ecdotally, a colleague of mine recently pointed me to the web page of a
theology professor at a fundamental/evangelical seminary whose rés-
umé included not only the date he was born again, but also the date of
his “dedication,” obviously emphasizing the once-and-for-all nature of
the event. Recent articles by two fundamentalists continue to laud the
theology of Keswick.41 The idea of an act of total consecration as
36
David L. Turner, review of Five Views on Sanctification, by Melvin E. Dieter,
Anthony A. Hoekema, Stanley M. Horton, J. Robertson McQuilkin, and John F.
Walvoord, Grace Theological Journal 10 (Spring 1989): 98.
37
See Jonathan R. Pratt, “Dispensational Sanctification: A Misnomer,” Detroit
Baptist Seminary Journal 7 (Fall 2002): 95–108; Mark A. Snoeberger, “Second-blessing
Models of Sanctification and Early Dallas Dispensationalism,” The Master’s Seminary
Journal 15 (Spring 2004): 93–105.
38
Responding to the Keswick presentation by McQuilkin, Walvoord says, “Those
holding to the Augustinian-dispensational perspective on sanctification will find little
with which they need to take issue in J. Robertson McQuilkin’s presentation of the
Keswick perspective” (“Response to McQuilkin,” in Five Views on Sanctification,
p. 194). Similarly, responding to Walvoord’s view, McQuilkin says, “Many Keswick
teachers and the basic Keswick approach are in harmony with John Walvoord’s presen-
tation” (“Response to Walvoord,” in Five Views on Sanctification, p. 236).
39
Another Dallas teacher, J. Dwight Pentecost, has said, “Experiential sanctifica-
tion…begins with the act of presenting oneself unto the Lord Jesus Christ” (Things
Which Become Sound Doctrine [Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 1965], p. 118).
40
It is only fair to mention that this Keswick emphasis has dissipated at Dallas
and some other evangelical schools in more recent years.
41
John R. Van Gelderen, “Keswick—A Good Word or a Bad One?” Revival,
May–August 2006, pp. 14–16; Robert Delnay, “What Happened to Keswick?”
10 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

essential for sanctification is alive and well.

In this essay I will argue that this emphasis on entire consecration
is wrongheaded, and this use of Romans 12:1–2 is really a misuse. This
text is no doubt using the imagery of dedication, but it cannot and
does not support the theology of sanctification through a single, once-
for-all act of dedication. It does not teach that sanctification begins
and depends upon such a dedication. In truth sanctification begins at
the time of justification and is the normal and inevitable result of re-
generation.42

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 new-
ness 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 res-
cued 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

Revival, May–August 2006, pp. 17–18. Revival magazine is published by Preach the
Word Ministries, P.O. Box 429, Exton, PA 19341, www.ptwm.org.
42
For a fuller treatment of sanctification, see my “The Disjunction Between Justi-
fication and Sanctification in Contemporary Evangelical Theology,” Detroit Baptist
Seminary Journal 6 (Fall 2001): 17–44.
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.
 Romans 12:1–2 11

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 op-
tional ‘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 summariz-
ing 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 ongo-
ing transformation that is from the inside out so that we might con-
form 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, life-
long 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 “com-
mand,” between a mere beseeching or urging and a more authoritative
exhortation.48 Most believe that Paul’s emphasis lies closer to exhorta-
tion. 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

45
Ibid.
46
Ibid., p. 745.
47
David L. Olford, “Romans 12:1–2: The Gospel and Renewal,” in Faces of Re-
newal: Studies in Honor of Stanley M. Horton, ed. Paul Elbert (Peabody, MA: Hen-
drickson, 1988), p. 21.
48
BDAG, s.v. “παρακαλέω,” pp. 764–65; C. E. B. Cranfield, A Critical and Exe-
getical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols., International Critical Com-
mentary (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 Re-
newal,” p. 24.
12 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

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 “be-
cause of” or “in view of.”52 The plural “mercies” may refer to the dif-
ferent 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 (µymij}ræ), which only appears in the plu-
ral.53 Thus, Paul’s exhortation for the believer to offer himself as a sac-
rifice to God has its basis in the mercy of God that has been so
wonderfully set forth in the preceding chapters. As Stott rightly ob-
serves, “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 mak-
ing 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, im-
pel 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

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 Commentar-
ies (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. “διά,” by Albrecht Oepke,
2:67–68; Moo, Romans, p. 749; Cranfield, Romans, 2:596; Schreiner, Romans, p. 643.
53
HALOT, s.v. “µymij}ræ,” 3:1218–19; New International Dictionary of New Testa-
ment 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
Moo, Romans, p. 750.
56
Ibid.
 Romans 12:1–2 13

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 for-
mative theologian of Keswick, commonly stressed this point in his
speaking and writing.59 And this emphasis was continued among evan-
gelicals 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 defi-
nite 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 presen-

tation 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

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.; Philadel-
phia: Sunday School Times, 1954), pp. 66–67. See also Alexander Smellie, Evan Hop-
kins: 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 [Chi-
cago: 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
14 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

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 sup-
port 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
What believers are commanded to offer to God is their “bodies.”
The word “body” (σῶμα) often refers to the physical body, and some
commentators believe that is specifically what Paul means here, espe-
cially contrasting the “body” with the “mind” (νοῦς) in v. 2.69 But

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.
69
Robert H. Gundry, Sōma in Biblical Theology (reprint of 1976 ed.; Grand Rap-
ids: Zondervan, 1987), pp. 34–36; William Sanday and Arthur C. Headlam, A Criti-
cal and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 5th ed., International
Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: T. & T. Clark, 1902), p. 350; Frederic L. Godet,
Commentary on Romans (reprint of 1883 ed.; Grand Rapids: Kregel, 1977), p. 425;
Robert Haldane, Commentary on Romans (reprint of 1853 ed.; Grand Rapids: Kregel,
1988), p. 562; John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols. in one, New Interna-
tional Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1959, 1965),
2:110.
In his monograph (Sōma in Biblical Theology), Gundry argues primarily against
 Romans 12:1–2 15

most commentators understand Paul in v. 1 to be using “body”

(σῶμα) by synecdoche70 to stand for the whole person, including the
body.71 As Calvin himself wisely observed, “By bodies he means not
only our skin and bones, but the totality of which we are composed.
He has used this word to denote by synecdoche all our parts, for the
members of the body are the instruments by which we perform our
actions.”72 We find the same figurative use of the term in 6:12–13
where “body” (σῶμα) must be interpreted more broadly to include the
whole person. Paul says, “do not let sin reign in your mortal
body…and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin
as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God.”
Obviously, the “mortal body” and the “members of your body” are to
be equated with “yourselves” (cf. 1 Cor 9:27; 13:3; Phil 1:20).73 Be-
cause of the imagery of sacrifice in v. 1, Paul quite naturally chose the
term “body” since it was the body of the animal that was placed on the
altar. But Paul’s emphasis is on the entire person, a truth that will be-
come clearer in v. 2.
From the NT we learn that Christians no longer offer literal sacri-
fices. Christ himself has fulfilled and brought to an end the OT sacrifi-
cial system. But because sacrifices were such a central part of ancient

the view of Rudolf Bultmann (Theology of the New Testament) and J. A. T. Robinson
(The Body: A Study in Pauline Theology) that in the NT and particularly in Paul’s writ-
ings, σῶμα means the “whole person, the human personality without reference to the
body. While Gundry’s work is a valuable correction to Bultmann and others who seem
to eliminate any reference to the physical, he goes beyond the evidence in arguing that
in most every instance Paul’s use of σῶμα refers to the physical body only. For some
corrective to Gundry, see Philip E. Hughes, review of Sōma in Biblical Theology, by
Robert H. Gundry, Westminster Theological Journal 39 (Fall 1976): 150; Daniel J.
Harrington, review of Sōma in Biblical Theology, by Robert H. Gundry, Biblica 58
(1977): 136–37; James D. G. Dunn, review of Sōma in Biblical Theology, by Robert
H. Gundry, Scottish Journal of Theology 31 (1978): 290.
70
Synecdoche is a figure of speech in which a part of something stands for the
whole of it. Examples are “threads” for clothing, “wheels” for car, “mouths to feed” for
hungry people. In Gen 19:8 when Lot is trying to protect the angels from the men of
Sodom, he says, “Do nothing to these men, inasmuch as they have come under the
shelter of my roof.” “Roof” really means house or home—a part for the whole.
71
BDAG, s.v. “σῶμα,” p. 984; Joseph A. Fitzmeyer, Romans, Anchor Bible (New
York: Doubleday, 1993), p. 639; Barrett, Romans, p. 231; Dunn, Romans, 2:709; Os-
borne, Romans, p. 319; Moo, Romans, p. 750–51; Cranfield, Romans, 2:598–99;
Schreiner, Romans, p. 644.
72
John Calvin, The Epistles of Paul the Apostle to the Romans and to the Thessaloni-
ans, trans. Ross MacKenzie (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1960), p. 262.
73
See Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “σῶμα,” by Eduard
Schweizer, 7:1064–66; Herman Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, trans.
John R. deWitt (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1975), p. 114; George E. Ladd, A Theology
of the New Testament, rev. ed. (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1993), pp. 506–7; James D.
G. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998), p. 58.
16 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

religion, it is natural and inevitable that Christian writers would use

this imagery to express Christian truth. For example, Paul tells the Phi-
lippians, “I am amply supplied, having received from Epaphroditus
what you have sent, a fragrant aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-
pleasing to God” (4:18). In his first epistle, Peter says that Christians
offer “spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God through Jesus Christ” (2:5).
But here in Romans 12:1 we are told to offer our bodies themselves—
God demands the giver.74
The kind of sacrifice that believers are to offer is explained by three
adjectives: “living,” “holy,” and “acceptable” (to God). With this lan-
guage the sacrificial metaphor is continued. Most translations render
the adjectival participle “living” or “alive” (ζῶσαν) as an attributive
adjective, with the adjectives “holy” (ἁγίαν) and “acceptable”
(εὐάρεστον) following as predicates, as in the familiar KJV (“a living
sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God”).75 However, it is more likely that
all three adjectives are to be taken as predicates, as in the NET, “a sacri-
fice—alive, holy, and pleasing to God.”76 That is, each has equal force
modifying “sacrifice,” and as predicate adjectives each is slightly more
emphatic than a comparable attributive adjective would be.77
The sacrifice of the believer is first of all said to be “living” or
“alive.” Many commentators understand the term, as Schreiner argues,
to denote “the spiritual state of believers. They are now ‘alive to God
in Christ Jesus’ (Rom 6:11, 13; 8:13). It is precisely those who are alive
in Christ who are called to give their lives to him as a sacrifice.”78 But
as Moo observes, such an interpretation would be possible if “living”
modified “bodies.” However, that is not the case—it modifies “sacri-
fice.”79 Since this is so, it is best to understand “living” to refer to the
nature of the sacrifice itself: “one that does not die as it is offered but
goes on living and therefore continues in its efficacy until the person
who is offered dies.”80

74
Moo, Romans, p. 750.
75
ASV, ESV, HCSB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV.
76
Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp. 618–19; Cranfield, Romans, 2:600; Moo Romans,
p. 751; Schreiner, Romans, p. 644; Morris, Romans, p. 434.
77
Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp. 618–19.
78
Romans, p. 644. Also Calvin, Romans, p. 264; Murray, Romans, 2:111; Cran-
field, Romans, 2:600.
79
Romans, p. 751. Those commentators like Murray who understand “bodies” in
the strictly physical sense (rather than a figure for the whole person) face a special
problem when they also take “living” with body: “It is the body alive from the dead
that the believer is to present” (2:111). Jack Cottrell explains, “But if ‘bodies’ literally
means bodies, this cannot be, because the body as yet does not participate in this new
life (8:10–11)” (Romans, 2 vols., College Press NIV Commentary [Joplin, MO: Col-
lege Press, 1998], 2:311).
80
Moo, Romans, p. 751. Also, Godet, Romans, p. 426; Charles Hodge,
 Romans 12:1–2 17

The sacrificial language is continued with the adjective “holy,”

which is the common way to describe sacrifices—they are reserved for
God and God’s service.81 Believers are to offer themselves to God,
which means they are set apart from all that is profane and are dedi-
cated to God’s service.82 Finally, Paul says such a sacrifice is “accept-
able” or pleasing to God because it is a proper kind of sacrifice that he
will accept.83 The word (εὐάρεστον) recalls the OT concept of sacri-
fices that are pleasing and fragrant to God (e.g., Lev 1:9; Exod 29:18;
Num 15:7).84
At the end of v. 1, Paul adds an appositional phrase that qualifies
the whole exhortation he has just given.85 Offering ourselves as a sacri-
fice is called our “spiritual service of worship” in the NASB. This
phrase has been notoriously difficult to translate. Most modern ver-
sions have rendered it something close to “spiritual worship” (ESV,
HCSB, NIV, NRSV) through the NET has returned to the reading of
the KJV (and NKJV), “reasonable service.” The adjective “spiritual”
(λογικός) is never used in the LXX and occurs only one other time in
the NT at 1 Peter 2:2. There Peter encourages his readers to “long for
the pure λογικόν milk,” which is usually rendered “spiritual milk.”86
Peter is seen as drawing a contrast between “spiritual” or figurative
milk and that which is literal.87 Thus, some commentators see Paul’s
emphasis in Romans 12:1 as a contrast between the Christian’s inner
“spiritual” worship and the literal, external forms of worship prescribed
in the OT.88 But this contrast may be overdrawn since the Christian’s

Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (reprint of 1886 ed.; Grand Rapids: Eerd-
mans, 1972), p. 384; MacLeod, “The Consecrated Christian and Conformity to the
World,” p. 108.
81
BDAG, s.v. “ἁγίος,” pp. 10–11.
82
Moo, Romans, p. 751; Schreiner, Romans, p. 644; Cranfield, Romans, 2:601.
83
Cranfield, Romans, 2:601.
84
Schreiner, Romans, p. 644; Osborne, Romans, p. 319. Compare the similar use
in Phil 4:18, “But I have received…from Epaphroditus what you have sent, a fragrant
aroma, an acceptable sacrifice, well-pleasing to God.”
85
So most commentators: Moo, Romans, p. 751; Schreiner, Romans, p. 644;
Cranfield, Romans, 2:601; Dunn, Romans, 2:711; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
p. 353. Contra Hodge (Romans, p. 384) and Barrett (Romans, p. 231), who restrict it
to θυσία only.
86
So ASV, ESV, HCSB, NET, NIV, NRSV, and most commentators (e.g., Wayne
Grudem, 1 Peter, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries [Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1988], p. 95). The translation of the KJV (NKJV, NASB), “milk of the word,” apparently
comes from the connection between λογικός and λόγος as well as the context where
the “milk” is a figure for the Word of God, but λογικός does not mean “word” here or
anywhere else.
87
So BDAG, s.v. “λογικός,” p. 598.
88
F. F. Bruce, The Letter of Paul to the Romans, 2nd ed., Tyndale New Testament
18 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

worship is not just internal but, as we have seen, involves the whole
person, including his body (σῶμα).89 Still, there is truth here since the
inner attitude is critical to Paul’s thought, as v. 2 indicates by stressing
“the renewing of your mind.”90
Our term (λογικός) was a favorite expression of philosophers since
the time of Aristotle.91 It was particularly used by the Stoics for whom
it meant “belonging to the sphere of the λόγος or reason” and thus
“spiritual” in the sense of beyond the physical senses.92 Epictetus used
it in connection with the worship of God: “If I were a nightingale, I
should be singing as a nightingale; if a swan, as a swan. But as it is, I
am a rational [λογικός] being, therefore I must be singing hymns of
praise to God.”93 Most likely in v. 1 the term means something like
“reasonable” or “logical,” and Paul is stressing the need for worship
that is appropriate to those who have rightly understood the truth of
the gospel as it has been revealed in Christ.94 This might be called “in-
telligent,” “understanding,” or “informed” worship. As Moo explains,
“We give ourselves to God as his sacrifices when we understand his
grace and its place in our lives. We offer ourselves not ignorantly, like
animals brought to slaughter, but intelligently and willingly. This is
the worship that pleases God.”95 Paul told us in 1:25 that men outside
of Christ have “exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped
and served the creature rather than the Creator.” In contrast the be-
liever’s offering of himself to God constitutes true, understanding wor-
ship (cf. TNIV, “this is true worship”).
The noun “worship” (λατρεία) can also mean “service.”96 It is
normally connected with the service a priest renders as part of the wor-
ship of God (Rom 9:4; Heb 9:1, 6), and in v. 1 the focus seems to be
on dedication as an act of “worship.”97 In Philippians 3:3, Paul uses

Commentaries (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1985), p. 213; Matthew Black, Romans,

New Century Bible (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1973), p. 151; Barrett, Romans, p. 231.
89
Moo, Romans, p. 753; Cranfield, Romans, 2:604; Cottrell, Romans, 2:312.
90
Moo, Romans, p. 753.
91
BDAG, s.v. “λογικός,” p. 598;
92
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “λογικός,” by G. Kittel, 4:142.
93
Discourses 1.16.20–21.
94
Godet, Romans, p. 426; Cranfield, Romans, 2:605; Schreiner, Romans, p. 645;
Olford, “Romans 12:1–2,” p. 30; David Peterson, “Worship and Ethics in Romans
12,” Tyndale Bulletin 44 (November 1993): 275; MacLeod, “The Consecrated Chris-
tian and Conformity to the World,” p. 109.
95
Douglas J. Moo, Romans, NIV Application Commentary (Grand Rapids: Zon-
dervan, 2000), p. 395.
96
BDAG, s.v. “λατρεία,” p. 587.
97
Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “λατρεύω, λατρεία, ας, ἡ,” by
 Romans 12:1–2 19

the cognate verb to designate believers as those who “are the true cir-
cumcision, who worship [λατρεύω] in the Spirit of God.” True wor-
ship is no longer confined, as in the old economy, to priestly activities;
instead, it “involves honoring God by submitting to his sovereignty in
every sphere of life.”98

The Believer’s Dedication Is Realized in

His Life-long Transformation (v. 2)
And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of
your mind, so that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and
acceptable and perfect.

In v. 1 Paul has called upon believers to offer themselves up to

God as the natural and expected result of having received God’s grace
in salvation. But v. 1 is actually a metaphor using the image of sacri-
fice. In that sense it has been preliminary to the real thrust of Paul’s
exhortation in v. 2. In v. 2 Paul explains the metaphor of sacrifice in
v. 1 by giving the concrete steps by which the imperative of v. 1 is to
be worked out in the lives of believers.99 “We can present ourselves to
the Lord as genuinely holy and acceptable sacrifices only if we ‘do not
conform to this world’ but ‘are transformed by the renewing of the
mind.’”100 The aorist tense verb “present” in v. 1, is now explained by
the two present tense verbs “conformed” and “transformed,” which
stress the progressive, ongoing nature of believer’s participation that is
required in his dedication to God.101 The sacrifice that Paul urges on
the Romans in v. 1 is no one-time act.
In v. 2, Paul begins with the negative: “Do not be conformed to
this world.”102 Since the prohibition (μὴ συσχηματίζεσθε) is in the
present tense, it could be understood, as some scholars suggest, to
mean that Paul wants his readers to “stop being conformed” to this

H. Balz, p. 345.
98
Thomas R. Schreiner, Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ (Downers Grove,
IL: InterVarsity Press, 2001), p. 253.
99
Moo, Romans, p. 754; Cottrell, Romans, 2:313; Schreiner, Romans, p. 646.
100
Moo, Romans, p. 754.
101
“The aorist tense ‘presents an occurrence in summary, viewed as a
whole,…without regard for the internal make-up of the occurrence.’ This contrasts
with the present…,which portray[s] the action as an ongoing process” (Wallace, Greek
Grammar, pp. 554–55).
102
As Dunn notes (Romans, 2:712), the imperative is probably passive, not middle
(contra NIV). The NET BIBLE argues that the passive form is more likely. A middle form
would have to be a direct middle (“conform yourselves”), and such middles are quite
rare in the Greek NT. See Wallace, Greek Grammar, pp. 416–17.
20 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

world.103 Although the grammar will allow such an interpretation, it is

not certain this is Paul’s emphasis in v. 2 since prohibitions using the
present tense are often only general precepts with no indication
whether the action is going on or not.104 Moo rejects the “stop being
conformed” understanding, arguing that “Paul’s generally positive atti-
tude toward the Romans’ spirituality (cf. 15:14) makes this doubt-
ful.”105 Moo may well be correct, but I am inclined to agree with
Cranfield, who sagely observes that “the pressures to conformity are
always present, and always strong and insidious—so that the Christian
often yields quite unconsciously…. The Christian has always to con-
fess that to a painfully large extent his life is conformed to this age.”106
What the Christian is not to be conformed to is “this world” (αἰών),
literally “this age.”107 Although this term can refer to the physical
world, it almost always has a temporal sense, denoting our present age
in the history of the world. Paul calls it “this present evil age” (Gal
1:4), seeing that it is characterized by the dominion of sin and Satan
(2 Cor 4:4; Eph 2:2). On the one hand, Christ died so that “He might
rescue us from this present evil age” (Gal 1:4), and in Romans 6 Paul
has made it clear that that those who have been justified are no longer
under the dominion of sin and death; nevertheless, we must still battle
sin every day, which includes, as the PHILIPPS translation so aptly puts
it, resisting the pressure to be “squeezed into the mold” of this world
and the pattern of behavior that so typifies it.108
Instead of being conformed to this age, believers are to “be trans-
formed.” Older scholars (and some more recent ones), following the
seminal arguments of J. B. Lightfoot, believe that there is an important
contrast between the first imperative “conformed” and the second im-
perative “transformed,” based on the different roots of the particular
Greek words. They argue that the imperative “conformed”
(συσχηματίζεσθε) refers to the outward form only and thus speaks of
a change that is only external and superficial, while the imperative
“transformed” (μεταμορφοῦσθε) indicates an internal and genuine
transformation.109 Morris explains, “Paul is looking for a

103
Cranfield, Romans, 2:607; Dunn, Romans, 2:712. Some older scholarship in-
correctly believed that the present imperative in a prohibition always “demanded the
cessation of some act that is already in progress” (H. E. Dana and Julius R. Mantey, A
Manual Grammar of the Greek New Testament [Toronto: Macmillan, 1955], p. 302).
Wallace has a helpful analysis of that error (Greek Grammar, pp. 714–17).
104
Wallace, Greek Grammar, p. 724.
105
Romans, p. 755.
106
Romans, 2:608.
107
BDAG, s.v. “αἰών,” p. 32.
108
Moo, Romans, p. 755.
109
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians (reprint of 1913 ed.; Grand
 Romans 12:1–2 21

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.”110 But Barrett nicely counters, “Conformity to this age is
no superficial matter.”111 More significantly, recent scholarship has
mostly rejected any important difference in meaning between the two
word groups because of the lexical data and the use of the words in
other contexts.112 For instance, in Philippians 3:21 Paul seems to use
the two word groups synonymously when he says that Jesus will
“transform” (μετασχηματίσει) the believer’s present body into “con-
formity” (σύμμορφον) with the Christ’s glorious body.
This transformation, Paul now explains, takes place by means of
“the renewing of your mind.” The word “mind” (νοῦς) in the NT ob-
viously involves man’s “faculty of intellectual perception” and in our
context deals more specifically with one’s “way of thinking, mind, atti-
tude,” or “disposition.”113 There is often a moral element involved that
might be called “practical reason” or “moral consciousness.”114 The
only other use of the word “renewing” (ἀνακαίνωσις) in the NT indi-
cates that this process of transformation begins at, and essentially de-
pends upon, regeneration: “He saved us, not on the basis of deeds
which we have done in righteousness, but according to His mercy, by
the washing of regeneration and renewing by the Holy Spirit” (Titus
3:5). The new life that is implanted by the Holy Spirit at regeneration
motivates and enables the believer to present himself as a living sacri-
fice to God. However, if this sacrifice is to continue to please God in
the ongoing trials and temptations of everyday life, the believer must
continually be transformed by the renewing of the mind.115 The be-
liever’s mind needs to be, in effect, reprogrammed so that his thinking
is in accord with this new life in the Spirit (cf. Rom 7:6). We are, as
Paul says in Col 3:10, “being renewed to a true knowledge according
to the image of the One who created him.”116 Using the same verb

Rapids: Zondervan, 1975), pp. 127–33; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, p. 353; Black,
Romans, p. 151; William Hendriksen, Expostion of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans, 2 vols.
(Grand Rapids: Baker, 1981), 2:405.
110
Romans, p. 435.
111
Romans, pp. 232–33.
112
E.g. Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “μορφή,” by J. Behm,
4:743–44; Cranfield, Romans, 2:605–7; Moo, Romans, p. 756; Schreiner, Romans,
pp. 646–67.
113
BDAG, s.v. “νοῦς,” p. 680; Theological Dictionary of the New Testament,
s.v. “νοῦς,” 4:958.
114
Theological Dictionary of the New Testament, s.v. “νοῦς,” 4:958; Moo, Romans,
p. 756; Ladd, Theology of the New Testament, pp. 518–19.
115
Peterson, “Worship and Ethics in Romans 12,” p. 282.
116
Here Paul uses the verb form (ἀνακαινόω) of the noun “renewing”
22 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

translated “transformed” in Romans 12:2 (μεταμορφόω), Paul cap-

tures this renewing process with a vivid metaphor in 2 Corinthians
3:18: “But we all, with unveiled face, beholding as in a mirror the
glory of the Lord, are being transformed [μεταμορφούμεθα] into the
same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit.” The
reprogramming of our minds is not accomplished in a short period of
time but is a slow, steady process that takes place over our lifetimes in
order that our thinking might more and more resemble the way God
wants us to think, which is, of course, like him.117 And to think like
him, to know and conform to his thinking, means that his truth, his
Word must be the standard that informs and regulates our renewed
minds.118 Mind-renewal is ultimately a process of internalizing the
Truth.
In the opening chapter of Romans, Paul has explained how that
people’s rejection of God has resulted in God giving them over to a
“depraved” mind, what the KJV calls a “reprobate” mind. The word
translated “depraved” (ἀδόκιμος) speaks of an “unqualified, worthless”
mind, one that “does not stand the test.”119 Such a worthless mind has
been disapproved because it is incapable of correctly assessing the truth
about God and the world he has made.120 Unbelievers cannot think
rightly about God. Instead they pervert the truth of God (Rom 1:21–
28). Now in v. 2 of our text, Paul contends that “the purpose121 of our
being transformed by the renewing of the mind is that this state might
be reversed,” that we may be able “prove what the will of God is.”122
While the unbeliever has a mind that is disapproved (ἀδόκιμος),

(ἀνακαίωσις) in Rom 12:2.

117
Moo, Romans, p. 757.
118
For Paul, the “mind” (νοῦς) “always includes the idea of an external standard”
(Horace E. Stoessel, “Notes on Romans 12:1–2,” Interpretation 17 (April 1963): 164.
Stott says, “Although Paul does not here tell us how our mind becomes renewed, we
know from his other writings that it is by a combination of the Spirit and the Word of
God. Certainly regeneration by the Holy Spirit involves the renewal of every part of
our humanness, which has been tainted and twisted by the fall, and this includes our
mind. But in addition, we need the Word of God, which is the Spirit’s ‘sword,’ and
which acts as an objective revelation of God’s will. Here then are the stages of Chris-
tian moral transformation: first our mind is renewed by the Word and Spirit of God;
then we are able to discern and desire the will of God; and then we are increasingly
transformed by it” (Romans, p. 324).
119
BDAG, s.v. “ἀδόκιμος,” p. 21.
120
Moo, Romans, p. 757.
The Greek construction used here, εἰς τό plus the infinitive (δοκιμάζειν)
121

probably denotes purpose (e.g., Moo, Romans, p. 757; Cranfield, Romans, 2:609; Os-
borne, Romans, p. 322), though result is also possible (e.g., Sanday & Headlam, Ro-
mans, p. 354; Hendriksen, Romans, 2:406; Cottrell, Romans, 2:316).
122
Moo, Romans, p. 757.
 Romans 12:1–2 23

disqualified from thinking rightly about God, the believer’s mind is

being renewed so that he can “prove” (δοκιμάζω) or “approve” what
God’s will is. The term (δοκιμάζω) in this context means to give ap-
proval to what one has discerned. It is used similarly in Ephesians
5:10, “trying to learn (δοκιμάζω) what is pleasing to the Lord.” Moo
notes, “‘Approving’ the will of God means to understand and agree
with what God wants of us with a view to putting it into practice.”123
By the “will of God,” Paul means, of course, what Murray calls God’s
“will of commandment,” his preceptive not his decretive will since the
latter “is not the norm according to which our life is to be patterned”
(cf. Deut 29:29).124 Although the process of mind-renewal begins at
conversion (Titus 3:5), believers do not immediately understand what
is pleasing to God (“the will of God”). Believers will face diverse and
sometimes conflicting choices with regard to how they are to act and
live. But as their minds are being renewed, they are able to put these
choices to the test of God’s Word and approve what is the appropriate
will of God for them.125 Schreiner explains, “As the mind is renewed,
believers bow to God’s rule in their lives.”126 And, truly, a renewed
mind will conclude that the will of God is nothing less than “that
which is good and acceptable and perfect.”

CONCLUSION
Contrary to how our text has frequently been understood by those
who have knowingly, or unknowingly, drunk from the well of Holi-
ness/Keswick theology, it cannot be used to support the requirement
for a special act of dedication as a necessary requirement for sanctifica-
tion. Of course, Paul does call for the believer’s dedication in Romans
12:1–2, and since obedience to every NT command is necessary for
progressive sanctification, dedication is undoubtedly essential for the
believer. But, unfortunately, what Paul means by dedication has too
often been misunderstood to mean a decisive, often one-time decision,
a special offering of the believer to God that instantaneously moves
him to a new level of spiritual development. But as we have seen, this
completely misses Paul’s emphasis.
Romans 12:1–2 can be viewed as basically summarizing the de-
mands of the gospel for believers who are living in a secular world.
What God wants from us who are the recipients of his grace is not so
much a specific act of dedication, but a life of dedication. Paul’s

123
Ibid.
124
Romans, 2:115.
125
Cf. the NIV: “Then you will be able to test and approve what God’s will is”
(also NET BIBLE).
126
Paul, Apostle of God’s Glory in Christ, p. 253.
24 Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal

metaphor of dedication is the model for the normal Christian life.

What God desires from his children is that they continually resist con-
formity to this age while they are, at the same time, being transformed
into the very image of Christ. This transformation involves the whole
person, an ongoing, lifelong transformation that is from the inside out
so that the spiritual renewal begun at regeneration continues until the
day of glorification. This transformation depends upon the continual
renewal of the believer’s mind in order that he might always be able to
discern God’s moral will for his life, to agree that it is good and accept-
able and perfect, and to seek to put it into practice. This process of
mind-renewal is somewhat of a virtuous circle. As the believer grows in
his understanding of and obedience to God’s truth, his mind will be
renewed so that he will be able to discern and obey God’s moral will
for his life. And as he continues to obey God’s will, he will continue to
be transformed. The process Paul sets forth in Romans 12:1–2 is essen-
tial if the believer is to live a life of obedience, and obedience to God is
the path to progressive sanctification.
 License and Permissible Use Notice

These materials are provided to you by the American Theological Library Association, operating as Atla,
in accordance with the terms of Atla’s agreements with the copyright holder or authorized distributor of
the materials, as applicable. In some cases, Atla may be the copyright holder of these materials.

You may download, print, and share these materials for your individual use as may be permitted by the
applicable agreements among the copyright holder, distributors, licensors, licensees, and users of these
materials (including, for example, any agreements entered into by the institution or other organization
from which you obtained these materials) and in accordance with the fair use principles of United States
and international copyright and other applicable laws. You may not, for example, copy or email these
materials to multiple web sites or publicly post, distribute for commercial purposes, modify, or create
derivative works of these materials without the copyright holder’s express prior written permission.

Please contact the copyright holder if you would like to request permission to use these materials, or
any part of these materials, in any manner or for any use not permitted by the agreements described
above or the fair use provisions of United States and international copyright and other applicable laws.
For information regarding the identity of the copyright holder, refer to the copyright information in
these materials, if available, or contact Atla using the Contact Us link at www.atla.com.

Except as otherwise specified, Copyright © 2021 Atla.