Romans 12:1

Romans 12:1. I beseech (or, ‘exhort') you therefore, brethren. The connection is undoubtedly with the conclusion of chap. 11; but for this very reason the practical inference is from the entire doctrinal part which culminated in that passage. ‘Beseech' is not a word of legal command, but an appeal addressed to Christians whose hearts, it is assumed, will respond to the motives on which the appeal is based. ‘Brethren,' as frequently before. The notion that Paul would not thus exhort the Christians of a church he had not founded, is altogether unsupported. Renan and others, by disputing the place of chaps. 12, 13 (and 14) in this Epistle, reveal an entire misapprehension of the Apostle's character. The man who really believes what is contained in chaps. 1-11 could not fail to exhort thus.

By (lit., ‘through') the mercies (or, ‘compassions') of God; as summed up in chap. Romans 11:35-36, but expounded in the former part of the Epistle. These are called to mind to furnish the motive for obedience to the exhortation; ‘as if any one wishing to make an impression on one who had received great benefits, were to bring his Benefactor himself to supplicate him' (Chrysostom). ‘He who is rightly moved by the mercy of God, enters into the entire will of God' (Bengel).

To present. The word is used of bringing for sacrifice. It points to a single act, not to a continued process, to the thankful bringing once for all of the offering, not to sacrificing it.

Your bodies. This cannot be referred to the body as the seat of sin. It is either a designation of the entire personality, chosen to suit the figure of a sacrificial thank-offering, or the body is specially referred to as the organ of practical activity, the instrument by which the living to God is to manifest itself. There is no objection to the view that this is ‘an indication that the sanctification of Christian life is to extend to that part of man's nature which is most completely under the bondage of sin' (Alford). Meyer takes the term literally here, finding in Romans 12:2 another reference, ‘so that the two verses together contain the sanctification of the whole man distributed into its parts, that of the outer man (set forth as the offering of a sacrifice), and that of the inner (as a renewing transformation).' But the phrase ‘rational service' seems to oppose this distinction, and there are other objections.

A living sacrifice; over against the Levitical offerings, which were to be slain. We indeed die to sin, but live unto God (comp. chap. 6 throughout).

Holy and well-pleasing to God; these terms qualify ‘sacrifice.' This offering is ‘holy,' morally pure over against the ceremonial purity of the Levitical offerings, as well as in opposition to the previous devotion to sin; it is ‘well-pleasing to God,' as ‘a savor of a sweet smell' (comp. Ephesians 5:2), since such an offering is not only based upon the expiatory offering of Christ, but is well-pleasing to God, whose will is our sanctification, as the Apostle declares in his earliest Epistle (1 Thessalonians 4:3).

Which is your rational service. This explains the whole clause: ‘to present,' etc. ‘Service' is used of religious service, or worship. The contrast undoubtedly is with the Old Testament ritual service. That of the new covenant, just described, is characterized as ‘rational,' which seems to be nearly equivalent to ‘spiritual' (1 Peter 2:5), over against the external, fleshly service (opus operatum). The term ‘rational' brings out this contrast better than ‘spiritual,' which might improperly suggest that the Old Testament service was in itself fleshly, in the ethical sense. Some, however, prefer the sense ‘reasonable,' explaining the phrase, ‘the service which answers in a rational manner to the moral premises established in the faith you profess' (Godet). In any case the true Christian service is one of self-dedication to God; only this is well pleasing to Him.