MSJ 31/1 (Spring 2020) 5–24 ONE LIVING SACRIFICE: A CORPORATE INTERPRETATION OF ROMANS 12:1 Dr. John D. Street James Street, ThM Jay Street, ThM The Master’s Seminary Romans 12:1 is not only a well-known verse among Christians; it is also a highly cherished text about personal sanctification. However, is an individual perspective the only component of sanctification in Romans 12:1? Is there a corporate element to sanctification that has been overlooked by much of evangelical scholarship? This article will examine the corporate dimension of Romans 12:1 in four parts. First, it will set the stage with a survey of the background of the book. Second, it will examine the context of the first eight chapters of the book to pave the way for the meaning of Romans 12:1. Third, it will explore the context of the three chapters leading up to Romans 12:1, chapters 9–11, in order to demonstrate how an international subject leads to corporate sanctification. Fourth, it will analyze the syntax and grammar of Romans 12:1 and its surrounding context, in order to provide a complete and thor- ough interpretation of the verse. * * * * * Introduction One of the most misunderstood and misused verses in the New Testament, and perhaps in all of Scripture, is Romans 12:1. That may surprise some people, but the modern interpretation of this verse is quite lacking. Biblical scholars often demand, “Let the text speak for itself!” But in a case like this, that is easier said than done. Why does this verse fail to undergo sufficient scrutiny compared to other misused passages throughout the Bible? First, there is often a failure to recognize how Romans 12:1 fits within the broader argument of the book. This verse is a critical part of the apostle Paul’s admonition to Roman Christians and a direct reflection of what was missing in this early church. Second, there are present-day, pre-text influences that have already framed the possibilities of one’s understanding of this verse, limiting his ability to carefully recognize its true relevance. These pre-text influences regard- ing Romans 12:1 can include captivating sermons, passionate testimonies, Christian 5 6 | One Living Sacrifice music, Christian books, dynamic Bible translations or paraphrases, various study Bi- bles, heart-warming devotionals, or respectable commentaries. All may have good intentions, but they may also communicate a deficient interpretation of the actual meaning and importance of Romans 12:1. Once the Christian culture treats a mis- reading of a verse as normative, it is hard to see the need for change. Many churches, missionary organizations, and para-church ministries adopt this verse as the motto for yielding to God’s calling on the Christian life. On the one hand, this sentiment is often expressed in the following way: “God has so worked in my heart that I desire to obey the admonition of Romans 12:1 and I now willingly lay my body down ‘as a living and holy sacrifice, acceptable to God, which is [my] spiritual service of worship.’” By their confession with this verse, they are dedicating the rest of their lives to full-time Christian service, whatever that may mean. On the other hand, this verse often serves as a warning, as humorously depicted by the old cliché, which is usually said in reference to individual Christians who give up their calling or ministry: “The problem with living sacrifices is that they keep crawling off the altar.” Such expressions of dedication to the Lord and His service are commendable when accompanied with a genuine love for Christ. The sincerity of people making such statements is not the issue addressed in this article; using Romans 12:1 is. When individual verses are removed from their context and used as a convenient prooftext, then Scripture is inevitably, and unintentionally, reduced to a book of magical incan- tations with stand-alone verses. Almost any false religion or cult can use isolated verses to justify a variety of desired behaviors. However, God’s Word should never be quoted out of context or used to justify one’s conduct when it distorts the contex- tual meaning of a passage. God does not like being taken out of context, just like most people do not. Regardless, there are many examples of Christians in the evan- gelical world who readily misunderstand and misapply Romans 12:1. This article is carefully written to restore the right understanding of Romans 12:1 and its renewed relevance for the church today. To begin, this article will seek to explain the background behind this powerful epistle. Next, it will walk through the broader and immediate arguments of the book and how they lay the groundwork for the true meaning of Romans 12:1. The better these contexts are understood, the more profound this verse will become. Finally, this article will expound on the verse itself, Romans 12:1, both in how it has been misinterpreted and in how it should be under- stood and applied to Christians in the modern church. The authors of this article hope that a faithful understanding of the importance and use of Romans 12:1 will cultivate more love for Christ and His body, the church! The Background of Romans To properly apprehend the meaning of Romans 12, the reader must appreciate the book’s background. This will be discussed in two parts—the Audience and Oc- casion and the Purpose of Writing. The Master’s Seminary Journal | 7 Audience and Occasion To capture the argument of the book, the historical background must not be un- derestimated. How did the church1 originate and who were its congregants? Black- welder remarked, “We have no direct evidence concerning the founding of the church at Rome.”2 One of the early church fathers, Irenaeus, claimed that both Peter and Paul had a part to play in the establishment of the Roman church. In his words, “[T]here is one, very great, and most ancient and known to all, the Church founded and estab- lished at Rome by two most glorious Apostles, Peter and Paul….”3 However, there is no early historical or biblical evidence that either of these apostles began the church in Rome.4 Nevertheless, it is evident that these two apostles played a role in the early development of the church, as Peter seemingly associates with these Christians later in his ministry (1 Pet 5:13),5 and the letter to the Romans is testimony to Paul’s ap- ostolic influence, not to mention his Roman imprisonment (Acts 28; Phil 1:12–14). If this is what Irenaeus intended by his comment, then it adds greater support to the notion. The lack of biblical support for Peter’s involvement in the earliest days of the church, and the fact that Paul had yet to visit the Roman believers at the writing of the Romans letter6 (Rom 1:13, 15; 15:22), suggest that the church began under dif- ferent circumstances.7 In Acts 2:10–11, the reader is introduced to a list of Jewish exiles sojourning to Jerusalem for the celebration of Pentecost. Among them was a unique group of sojourning Romans, both Jews and proselyte Gentiles.8 As Fiensy put it, “There were Jews from Rome present when the church began on the day of 1 Or churches, as there may have been several congregations in the city. See Craig S. Kenner, Ro- mans, NCCS (Eugene, OR: Cascade, 2009), 12. 2 Boyce W. Blackwelder, Toward Understanding Romans: An Introduction and Exegetical Transla- tion (Anderson, IN: The Warner Press, 1962), 28. 3 Irenaeus, Against the Heresies, trans. Dominic J. Unger, ed. John J. Dillon (New York: Newman, 1992), 3:206. 4 Blackwelder, Toward Understanding Romans, 28. 5 The identity of the “fellow elect one [feminine] in Babylon” (ἡ ἐν Βαβυλῶνι συνεκλεκτὴ) is de- bated, but many scholars, including Schreiner, capably argue that the identity is Rome (i.e. the church in Rome; cf. Isa 13–14; 46–47; Jer 50–51; Rev 17–18). See Thomas R. Schreiner, 1, 2 Peter, Jude, vol. 37, NAC, ed. E. Ray Clendenen (Nashville: Broadman & Holman, 2003), 250–51. 6 Blackwelder, Toward Understanding Romans, 28n1. 7 Moreover, Paul’s ambition to not preach the gospel on another apostle’s foundation (15:20) dis- courages the idea that Peter or any other apostle established the Roman church. In addition to this, Black- welder added, “[I]t is significant that the tradition which it reflects has no thought of the primacy of Peter.” Ibid. In other words, even if Peter helped establish the Roman church, early church history lacks any evidence that Peter began as Rome’s first pope. For a list of other theories besides Peter or Paul as the church’s founder, see Blackwelder, Toward Understanding Romans, 31–32. 8 Gk. οἱ ἐπιδημοῦντες Ῥωμαῖοι (Acts 2:10). The participle accompanying the ethnic “Romans” term—translated “visiting” or “sojourning”—means “to stay in a place as a stranger or visitor” according to Walter Bauer, “ἐπιδημέω,” A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, ed. Frederick William Danker, trans. William Arndt and F. Wilbur Gingrich, 3rd ed. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 370 (hereafter, BDAG). Also, following the term is the phrase Ἰουδαῖοί τε καὶ προσήλυτοι (“both Jews and proselytes”). Given that this ascription is placed in the middle of a list of ethnic names, it is likely that it specifically defines what kind of Romans came to Pentecost— both Jews and non-Jews (i.e., Gentiles who became worshippers of the true God).