VERBUM VITAE • 39/3 (2021) 791–806

ISSN 1644-856 / e-ISSN 2451-280X /https://czasopisma.kul.pl/vv/article/view/12817

DOI 10.31743/vv.12817
Received: Jun 24, 2021 / Accepted: Aug 30, 2021 / Published: Sep 30, 2021

http:/ creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/4.0

Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1).

The Pauline Idea of Worship between
the Hebrew and Hellenistic Worlds
MATTEO CRIMELLA
Theological Faculty of Northern Italy, Milan
[email protected], ORCID: 0000-0002-0425-3211
https://orcid.org/0000-0002-0425-3211

Abstract:This essay focuses on a passage from Paul’s Letter to the Romans, in particular on an ex-
pression: λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1). After having studied its context in some depth, it shows how Paul
operates in a dual direction: the apostle removes from the expression any semantic link bound up with
worship; he also attributes to it a profane semantic. Paul does not intend to oppose the two worships,
Jewish and Christian. His words imply that, like ancient Israel before them, the Christian believers
should also be distinguished for their worship. Christian worship is conceived differently. It is far from
being a spiritualization of worship. Such a reduction is excluded by the object of the sacrifice, “your
bodies.” Paul operates in two directions: on the one hand, he avoids the trap of supersessionism with
regard to Jewish worship; on the other hand, he excludes a spiritualization (or interiorization) of Greek
religious practices. Paul’s language is distinct both from the grand tradition of Israel and from the
Hellenistic world.
Keywords: λογικὴ λατρεία, Rom 12:1, semantic of worship, Jewish worship, Greek religious practices

1. A Letter in Greek

Like the other writings of the New Testament, we possess the Letter to the Romans
in Greek, and, in the opinion of all the experts, it was thought up and dictated
(cf. Rom 16:22) by Paul, precisely in the language then current in the Eastern part
of the Roman Empire. The choice of Greek was almost de rigueur, but not without
certain consequences. In fact, expressing oneself in that language involved the re-
sponsibility of taking up a vast and fascinating culture with the possibility of allowing
oneself to be dominated by its models of thought. Paul was certainly not the first to
formulate his ideas in the language of Homer which was later spread by Alexander
of Macedon around the whole of the Mediterranean basin. The Hebrew Bible had al-
ready been translated into that idiom, and it was precisely in that same language that
not a few Jews of the time wrote to the extent that, in the middle of the I century A.D.

791
Matteo Crimella

(the period when Paul composed Romans) one could already speak easily of a not
negligible Jewish literature in Greek.1
In this brief essay, we shall focus our attention on a celebrated passage, better, on
a famous expression: λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1). After having studied its context in
some depth, we would like to show how Paul operates in a dual direction: on the one
hand, the apostle removes from the expression any kind of semantic link bound up
with the worship; on the other hand, he attributes to it a profane semantic.2 Natu-
rally, we have to ask about the consequences of this double procedure and what it
can indicate concerning that complex problem of the relation of Christianity with
the Hellenistic world.3

2. A Parecletic Development

Many commentators4 on the Letter to the Romans recognise that, from chap-
ter 12, there begins a paraenetic development or, to use even more precise language,
a paracletic one.5 If we analyse the rhetorical strategy of the letter, it emerges that,
after an expansive salutation (cf. Rom 1:1-7), the apostle concludes his exordium
(cf. Rom 1:8-17) with the expression of his fundamental theological thesis, the prop-
ositio (cf. Rom 1:16-17). Here, he offers a general definition of the gospel, not in
terms of content but, rather, of formal constitution. He does not say what is or what
ought to be the object of his proclamation but insists on the importance and on
the fundamental character of the proclamation as such (it is clear, nevertheless,
that the reference is to the Christian proclamation); evangelisation is an event that
lies close to his heart. Paul does not start off from the historical past of the Christ-

1 Cf. Adrados, Historia de la lengua griega, 184–189; Usener, “Zur Sprache der Septuaginta,” 40–51.
2 Jean Noël Aletti (La Lettera ai Romani, 111) writes: “[I] cristiani provenienti dal paganesimo non poteva-
no più fare ritorno ai templi pagani, né era loro consentito, in quanto incirconcisi e non ebrei, entrare nel
tempio di Gerusalemme e unirsi alle feste dei loro fratelli di origine ebraica. […] Paolo fa capire loro che
non sono affatto penalizzati, che non gli manca nulla, dato che la loro stessa vita è un’offerta superiore ad
ogni altra.”
3 For a documented discussion, cf. Markschies, Hellenisierung des Christentums.
4 On this question, there is no unanimity. For some, this is the beginning of the paraenetic part of the letter;
for others, Rom 12:1 represents the beginning of another letter which later merged with Romans (on this
whole question, cf. the survey of Michele Marcato [Qual è la volontà di Dio, 61–63]).
5 Antonio Pitta (Lettera ai Romani, 417) writes: “Per importanti motivazioni abbiamo intitolato questa
unità letteraria come paràclesi e non come parenesi paolina, contrariamente alla trattazione comune di
Rm 12,1 – 15,13. Di fatto, mentre nel NT è raro l’uso del verbo parainein (2 volte: At 27,9.22) e il sostan-
tivo parainesis non è mai utilizzato, sono diffusi i corrispondenti parakalein e paraklēsis. [… M]entre pa-
rainein e parainesis significano soltanto esortare o incoraggiare, i termini paraklēsis e parakalein assumono
significati più ampi, oltre a esortare, come consolare (cf. 2Cor 1,3–4) e perorare la causa di qualcuno in
contesti giudiziari (cf. 1Gv 2,1).”

792 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

event but from the here and now of evangelisation. The whole letter is thus placed
under the standard of the concept of “gospel.” The probatio is extensive and sub-
divided into three stages: Hebrew and Greek have been justified by faith alone
(cf. Rom 1:18–4:25); whoever has received the justice of God in faith has the new
life in the Spirit (cf. Rom 5:1–8:39); God has manifested his justice towards Israel
too (cf. Rom 9:1–11:36). This first part of the letter concludes with the recognition
that God wishes to have mercy (the verb used is ἐλεέω) on every person (cf. Rom
11:30). The second, paracletic, part (cf. Rom 12:1–15:13), takes up the very founda-
tion of the Christian life, that is, the mercy of God (here, however, the word used is
οἰκτιρμός; cf. Rom 12:1).
The link between the incipit of the second section and the first part has been
much discussed by exegetes. Not a few commentators take their stance from the con-
clusive particle “therefore (οὖν)” (Rom 12:1)6 and on the theme of mercy.7 Others,
though, object, claiming that Paul is not speaking explicitly of justice and justifica-
tion; moreover, the particle οὖν could have a generic value and indicate only the pas-
sage to a new subject. Thus, by varying the terminology about mercy (from ἐλεέω/
ἔλεος to οἰκτιρμός), the apostle would be intending to mark off a break with the pre-
vious section8 so that the new section would have a self-standing paracletic character.
The intermingling of the formal-literary and logico-contentual dimensions has
to be recognised as essential for an adequate analysis of the Pauline Epistles since it
appears problematic, at the very least, to focus on the simple inventio of the rhetor-
ical devices employed by the apostle, which have been determined from the start-
ing point of ancient treatises (or even from modern manuals), but without grasping
the articulation of his thought.

3. A Theological Reversal

First of all, it is necessary to highlight that our passage is the end point of an argument
which has been created within the letter. We are, therefore, among those who hold
that the paraclesis is closely linked to the so-called doctrinal section. In fact, although

6 Douglas J. Moo (The Epistle to the Romans, 748) claims, for example: “‘Therefore’ must be given its
full weight: Paul wants to show that the exhortations of 12:1–15:13 are built firmly on the theology of
chaps. 1–11”.
7 Pitta (L’evangelo di Paolo, 267) notes: “Nel caso di 12,1 – 15,13 il motivo della misericordia divina, ac-
cennato in 11,30, torna in 12,1, anche se con termini diversi: nel primo caso si tratta della misericordia
gratuita di Dio, nel secondo della sua compassione per gli uomini che interpella l’offerta dei loro corpi.
Pertanto, si tratta di un [sic!] etica consequenziale che salvaguarda l’eccedente gratuità della giustificazio-
ne in Cristo.”
8 Cf. Evans, “Romans 12.1–2,” 9–10.

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 793
Matteo Crimella

the section which begins here is exhortatory, that does not take away from the fact
that the paraclesis is well inserted into the preceding kerygmatic exposition. The ar-
gument convincing us is not so much the question of οὖν as a more careful consider-
ation of the whole of what Paul is saying. The study of the semantics of our passage
shows that it ties together a series of threads which Paul has drawn on until now in his
writing. This discursive network shows the nature of the way of the believer.9
There is, first of all, a theological reversal by means of the reprise of the vocab-
ulary typical of the first part of the letter (cf. Rom 1:18–3:20) which, however, is
given a positive sense. The context of Rom 1:18–3:20 sketches a picture of a human-
ity which refuses to recognise the works of God. Men use their “bodies (σώματα)”
(Rom 1:24) in a way that dishonours them. They have perverted God’s truth with
a lie, worshipping (ἐλάτρευσαν) the creation rather than the Creator (cf. Rom 1:25).
Since they did not consider the full knowledge of God worth having, God handed
them over to their “base mind (νοῦν)” (Rom 1:28). The condemnation is universal.
It affects both Jews and Greeks alike: the Jew knows the “will (θέλημα)” (Rom 2:18)
of God and knows how to discern (δοκιμάζεις) (cf. Rom 2:18) what is important. In
fact, however, he nullifies his superiority through his infidelity. In the first part of
the letter, this vocabulary paints a black picture, one of justice which is forensic and
not evangelical. In chapter 12, this same vocabulary is reprised with a positive value.
The “bodies” which lead to dishonour (cf. Rom 1:24) become “bodies (σώματα)”
(Rom 12:1) offered as a living sacrifice; the worship of the creation (cf. Rom 1:25) is
displaced by a “worship (λατρείαν)” in the order of the lógos (cf. Rom 12:1); the base
mind (cf. Rom 1:28) is modified and renewed so that it can “discern (δοκιμάζειν)”
the “will of God (τὸ θέλημα τοῦ θεοῦ)” (Rom 12:2), precisely that will which the Jew,
the recipient of Paul’s apostrophe (cf. Rom 2:18), believed that he knew.
The reprise of the terms (σώματα – Rom 1:24; 12:1; λατρεία – Rom 1:25; 12:1;
νοῦς – Rom 1:28; 12:2; δοκιμάζω – Rom 2:18; 12:2; θέλημα – Rom 2:18; 12:2) forms
part of a rhetorical strategy within a discursive argument which is meant to provoke
a change in the reader’s understanding of himself. He passes from sin and unbelief to
grace and faithfulness. But how can such a change come about?
After tracing a dark panorama (cf. Rom 1:18–3;20), Paul changes key complete-
ly: God reveals his justice independently of the Law by freely justifying those who
believe in him (cf. Rom 3:21–5:21). Penna comments thus: “Passing from v. 20 to
v. 21 of Rom 3 is like crossing a threshold, passing through a watershed, overcoming
a disparity in height with a decisive leap, a leap which returns to recover the height
of the theme set out in the propositio, 1:16-17, beginning again on that same height.”10
The condemnation which weighed on humanity has been removed, making possible
a life in grace. Thus, the believer comes to a new understanding of his own existence.

9 Cf. the study of Danielle Jodoin (“Rm 12, 1–2 une intrigue discursive”).
10 Penna, Lettera ai Romani, 229.

794 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

Whoever has received in faith the manifestation of the justice of God, revealed by
the gospel, finds himself before a new possibility which takes on the face of respon-
sibility. “Dead with Christ” (Rom 6:8) through baptism, the justified believers are
no longer under the slavery of the Law and sin but under the liberating lordship of
the grace of Christ, who acts in them through the Spirit (cf. Rom 8).
The frequent use of the verb παρίστημι (“offer,” 5 times in Rom 6) marks an-
other crucial moment in the way of the believers: they must conform their exis-
tence to the new state acquired in justification. Two types of offering are mentioned:
“yourselves (ἑαυτούς)” (Rom 6:13.16) and “the parts of your bodies (τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν)”
(Rom 6:13.19). Whereas the offering of the “parts of the body” is always in tension
between a negative past and a positive present, the offering of “yourselves” seems
to be free from this opposition and is always positive. The same verb, παρίστημι, is
employed in our text. This time, however, the object of the offering is no longer the
“members (μέλη)” but the “bodies (σώματα)” (Rom 12:1).
The term μέλη, furthermore, indicates two distinct realities: both the parts of
a person’s body and the parts of the body of Christ, that is, the “community.” It is
somewhat singular that, before our passage in Rom 12:1-2, μέλη always indicates
the parts of the body (cf. Rom 6:13.19; 7:5.23); afterwards, however, it designates
those who belong to the Christian community (cf. Rom 12:4.5). As we have already
observed in connection with the verb παρίστημι, the uses of the term μέλη also reveal
a tension between justice and injustice (cf. Rom 6:13); between impurity and holiness
(cf. Rom 6:19); between the law of sin and another law (cf. Rom 7:5.23). Yet, after
our passage, the “members” indicate the parties of reality that is completely united,
one that forms a single body in Christ (cf. Rom 12:4.5). A similar semantic change is
made possible by the radical transformation spoken of in Rom 12:1-2. In other words,
the offering of those members that are now free from tension, namely of the body as
a living sacrifice, manifests adhesion to God. By means of the semantic change from
a “body vowed to death because of sin” (Rom 8:10) to the bodies offered “as a living
sacrifice” (Rom 12:1) and from the “offering of the members” (Rom 6:13) to the offer-
ing of the bodies (cf. Rom 12:1), the believers participate in the same transformation.
These observations about the semantics enable us to draw a first consequence.
The reprise of a series of key-words from the previous argument evokes in the read-
er the fundamental steps which Paul has made him take by expounding his gospel,
emphasising without ceasing the gratuitous nature of God’s gift and of his mercy for
everyone. If Paul has argued convincingly, he now intends to evoke a response in
the reader. Christian action can only be consistent with what has been laid down,
according, that is, to the rule of faith. The emphasis is clearly anthropological in that
Paul does not resume the previous theological “treatment” (in fact, there is none
of the vocabulary typical of the first part: “gospel,” “salvation,” “faith,” “revelation,”
“power” and “justice of God”); rather, the focus is on the life of the baptised, trans-
formed by grace and power of the Holy Spirit.

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 795
Matteo Crimella

4. The Paraclesis

A second observation concerns the theme of the paraclesis. Before issuing the com-
mand to offer their bodies, Paul introduces a prepositional complement: “through
the mercy of God (διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ)” (Rom 12:1). In itself, the complement
could be understood in an adverbial sense, emphasising the urgency of the request.
In fact, the singular nature of the expression draws attention to a theological purpose.
The commentators are divided into two groups: for some, this expression recalls
the whole of the first complex of the letter (chapters 1–11); for others, instead, only
the final section (chapters 9–11).11 The question is the following: how to interpret
the expression διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ? Paul uses a plural here (τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν).
This is usually explained as a Septuagintism,12 and so with the value of an inten-
sive singular.13 However, the rarity of the expression requires further investigation.
The term οἰκτιρμός and the verb οἰκτίρω occur about seventy times in the Greek
version of the Bible. From various texts (cf. Exod 33:19; Zech 12:10; 3 Macc 5:51),
the revelatory value of mercy emerges: the Lord has manifested and manifests his
gift of himself to the people of Israel by freeing them from slavery. Later, the Psalter
(cf. Ps 50) sings the trust of the people in the Lord who does not treat them according
to their sin but pardons them. The same idea is developed in the penitential prayers
(cf. Ezra 9; Neh 9; Dan 9).
Paul makes his own all the potentiality of the term οἰκτιρμός as it is attest-
ed in the Septuagint. However, before considering Rom 12:1, we must turn briefly
to the first part of the letter. Two texts are crucial in this regard: Rom 9:14-16 and
Rom 3:21-26. In Rom 9–11, Paul tackles the mystery of Israel, the election of a spe-
cial people by God, the rejection of the proclamation of the gospel by some. To do
this, he places himself in a position that is really singular. As Dunn incisively puts it:
“the blessings of the gospel (to all) are the blessings of Israel; and yet they remain Isra-
el’s blessings.”14 Paul, that is, does not immediately (in Rom 9:15) defend God’s free-
dom to preserve some and abandon others. The divine identity is pictured in terms
of pure mercy. Moreover, the reference to the Lord’s words to Moses reveals that
Paul is probably alluding to the context of the conversation which took place after
the rebellion and the idolatrous act with respect to the golden calf (cf. Exod 32:1-25).
It is quite clear, therefore, that God’s revelation to his people is his self-manifestation
of his mercy and compassion. Thus, the quotation of Exod 33:19 in Rom 9:15-16
underlines the revelatory aspect of mercy while the grace of pardon is implicit. How-
ever, in Rom 3:21-26, the passage which represents the theological acme of the letter,

11 A precise list of the positions and authors is provided by Gupta (“What ‘mercies of God’?,” 82, n. 3).
12 Cf. Blass – Debrunner – Rehkopf, Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, § 142.
13 Cf. Romano Penna (Lettera ai Romani, 811–812), who records various examples and also quotes the exact
translation of the Vulgate, “per misericordiam Dei.”
14 Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem, 910.

796 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

the three dimensions of mercy emerge in all their force: firstly, the revelation of God
himself (cf. Rom 3:21) in the historical event of Christ; second, the redemptive as-
pect: God has carried out the “redemption (ἀπολύτρωσις)” (Rom 3:24) precisely by
means of Jesus so that the term is a powerful evocation of the image of the Exodic
liberation, but, in the context, has a Christological colouring; and, finally, Paul refers
the effect of pardon to the justice of God.
At this point – and only at this point – we can return to Rom 12:1. When Paul
exhorts his readers to offer their bodies, the commentators recall that the term
σῶμα indicates the person as a whole. However, we must not forget that, in the Let-
ter to the Romans, Paul has always spoken of the body as under the dominion of
sin. Starting from the first chapter, the apostle describes the corruption of the body
(cf. Rom 1:24); the body of Abraham is described as “already dead” (Rom 4:19);
chapter 6 speaks of a “body of sin” (Rom 6:6) subjected to slavery (cf. Rom 6:12).
The “I,” who is the subject of chapter 7, is hoping for liberation “from this body
of death” (Rom 7:24). Finally, in the chapter devoted to the Spirit, Paul recalls that
a new life has been given to this “mortal body” (Rom 8:11) so that the power of sin
has been eradicated (cf. Rom 8:13). On this basis, precisely by appealing to mercy,
Paul can exhort the believers, liberated from the yoke of sin and death, to enjoy their
new condition. Moreover, it is precisely by evoking the image of the Exodus that
Paul reflects on the impact of the Christ event: the Israelites passed from slavery to
freedom, and, journeying in the desert, they learned to serve the Lord. The verb used
in the Greek version of the book of Exodus to indicate the service of God is λατρεύω
(cf. Exod 3:12), a verb closely related to the substantive λατρεία (cf. Rom 12:1). From
this it follows that the believers are called to offer their bodies, not as an object of
worship (cf. Rom 16:18) but as an organ of worship, that is, through their commit-
ment to God.
Thus, the worship of which the apostle speaks is the end point of the salvific work
willed by God and carried out by Jesus Christ, that work which the pregnant and rare
term οἰκτιρμός evokes through its multifaceted dimensions.

5. Sacrificial Terms

The response which Paul intends to provoke is meant to involve the whole being:
spirit, intelligence, will. Surprisingly, the paraclesis is expressed in sacrificial terms.
That has to be understood as having a double matrix: Jewish and pagan. Paul’s lan-
guage has the power to evoke both backgrounds: the biblical and the Greco-Roman.
The paraclesis is composed of a rather complex exhortation (cf. Rom 12:1) and
a pair of imperatives (cf. Rom 12:2) whose range is general. It is surprising that
the apostle develops an original concept of worship in order to lay down the pro-

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 797
Matteo Crimella

gramme of the Christian life. The employment of a sacrificial language is some-

what singular in that Paul rarely has recourse to cultic images to speak of Christ and
the Christian. At times though, he uses metaphors drawn from precisely that world
in order to delineate aspects of the believing life (cf. Phil 4:18; 2 Cor 8–9). It is worth
the trouble of pausing to examine terms indicating worship since this is the heart of
the present paper: they are at the centre of a notable scholarly discussion.
Paul invites his readers to offer their bodies, namely, themselves, as sacrificial
victims. The exhortation intends to involve the whole person, that is, daily existence
and relations. Syntactically, the construction θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ,
τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν is in apposition to the term σώματα, with a passage from
the plural to the singular, something which could signal the corporate dimension of
the presentation.15 The metaphorical nature of the expression is clear in that Chris-
tians do not offer sacrifices in the literal sense; that is, they do not burn animals
whose throats have been cut.16 So the “sacrifice (θυσία)” does not refer to any specific
forms of worship but involves the bodies of the people concerned, that is, their exis-
tence. The emphasis is wholly on the interaction between the person and the world.
The apostle then makes use of three adjectives corresponding to the sacrificial meta-
phor: “living, holy, pleasing to God.” The first adjective, “living (ζῶσαν),” “constitutes
a clear oxymoron,”17 precisely because the sacrifice consists of the killing of an animal
whereas the emphasis here is on human life; the second, “holy (ἁγίαν),” is employed
regularly for the description of sacrifices, even if implying here the offering of the of-
ferers themselves to God, that is, being set apart from what is profane in order to be
dedicated to the service of the Lord. The final expression, “pleasing to God (εὐάρεστον
τῷ θεῷ)” recalls the idea of the pleasant odour which rises to heaven (cf. Lev 1:13.17).
The description of this “cultic service (λατρεία)” in a metaphorical sense (λογική)
is really singular. The term λατρεία signifies “service” but it is often used in a religious
and cultic sense both in classical Greek18 and in the Septuagint.19 However, the adjec-
tive (which does not appear in the Septuagint) is crucial; it occurs only here and in
1 Pet 2:2 where it describes that λογικόν “milk” which nourishes the newly baptised

15 Cf. Smiga, “Romans 12:1–2 and 15:30–32”. However, θυσίαν could also be a distributive singular (cf. Moo,
The Epistle to the Romans, 750, n. 24).
16 Penna (Lettera ai Romani, 813) offers a magisterial survey of the term θυσία: it “di norma fa parte di un
contesto sacrale e serve a designare lo sgozzamento di un animale, di cui una parte viene bruciata in onore
degli dèi e un’altra viene consumata dagli offerenti in un banchetto.”
17 Penna, Lettera ai Romani, 814.
18 For example, Plato writes: “I live in extreme poverty for my service to god (διὰ τὴν τοῦ θεοῦ λατρείαν)”
(Apologia 23c). There is also an interesting text by Philo: “we conceive of the Samuel of the Scripture, not
as a living compound of soul and body, but as a mind which rejoices in the service and worship of God
and that only (ὡς νοῦς λατρείᾳ καὶ θεραπείᾳ θεοῦ μόνῃ χαίρων)” (De ebrietate 144).
19 There are nine occurrences: Exod 12:25.26; 13:5; Josh 22:27; 1 Chr 28:13; 1 Macc 1:43; 2:19.22;
3 Macc 4:14. The verb λατρεύω is much more frequent (98 times); cf. Exod 23:25: “You shall serve the Lord
your God.”

798 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

who are portrayed as new-born babes. This is clearly milk in a metaphorical, not
a material sense. The same goes for Rom 12:1. However, light is shed on this adjective
by the Hellenistic world20 where it recurs with a certain frequency. Philo writes: “What
is precious in the sight of God is not the number of victims immolated but the true
purity of a rational spirit in him who makes the sacrifice (καθαρώτατον τοῦ θύοντος
πνεῦμα λογικόν)” (De specialibus legibus 1,277). In Epictetus, the human being is de-
scribed as a ζῷον λογικόν (cf. Dissertationes 2,9,2). The Hermetic texts attest the for-
mulas that are closest to our text: “[O God] receive rational victims (λογικὰς θυσίας)
pure from the soul and the heart raised to you” (Corpus hermeticum 1,31). What we
have here, therefore, are non-material offerings which rise from within people, con-
sisting, perhaps, of silent adoration. In addition: “Through me, receive everything
with reason (λόγος) in rational sacrifice (λογικὴν θυσίαν)” (Corpus hermeticum 13,18).
To these occurrences we must add others originating, from Greek-speaking Jewish
circles. In the Testament of Levi, the angelic worship around the throne of God is
described thus: they “offer to the Lord a fragrance of good perfume, a reasonable and
bloodless victim (λογικὴν καὶ ἀναίμακτον προσφοράν)” (3,6). For his part, Philo de-
clares: “[God] somehow fashioned a house or a sacred temple for the rational animal
(ψυχῆς λογικῆς), which man was to have carried within himself as a sacred image,
the most Godlike of all the images” (De opificio mundi 137).
On the lexical plane, there is actually nothing equivalent to πνευματικός
(Rom 7:14), the adjective Paul utilises for the pneumatological perspective. If he had
wanted to indicate it here, he would certainly have used it. Instead, λογική could have
been suggested to him from the Greek environment to indicate the kind of worship
that was in harmony with human nature, that was “logical.” So one could think of
linking it with the metamorphosis of the νοῦς of which Paul speaks in Rom 12:2. In
this case, a worship would be being indicated which was not just suitable to the nat-
ural “rationality” of human beings but, rather, to their minds transformed by the so-
teriological action of God. The next verse, Rom 12:2, seems to be specifying this
“reasonable worship” objectively as nonconformity and, above all, metamorphosis.
The transforming eschatological newness has erupted into history in Christ, as Paul
recalls elsewhere (“the old has gone away; behold, the new has arisen” [2 Cor 5:17]).
This is translated into an active “being renewed” of the interior and mental sign of
the person (νοῦς), which enables a conscious action in conformity with the will of
God and the pursuit of the good. The adjective has been (and is) translated with
“spiritual,” but, undoubtedly, its sense is rendered better by the adjectives “rational,”
“logical,” “sensible,” “reasonable” or the periphrasis: “what has to do with the reason,”
or else: “suitable, decent.”21

20 Documentation in Bartsch, “λογικός,” 876–878 and Penna, Lettera ai Romani, 815–816.

21 Hans-Werner Bartsch (“λογικός,” 877) offers these examples: “geistlich, geistig, sachgemäß, vernünftig.”
Massimiliano Palinuro (“Rm 12:1–2: le radici dell’etica paolina,” 167) explains: “Le versioni antiche

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 799
Matteo Crimella

If one part of the vocabulary employed here – namely, the verb “offer,” the term
“sacrifice” and then the adjectives “holy,” “pleasing to God” and the term “worship
(λατρεία)” – is a clear echo of cultic language, the addition of the terms “your bodies,”
“living” and “in the order of the lógos,” beyond the invitation to transformation and
nonconformity, makes clear that the Pauline use of the cultic metaphor is an attempt
to break with the patterns of thought familiar to the reader.22 It is precisely here, how-
ever, that the debate rages.
For not a few interpreters,23 Paul is playing here on the contrast between Jewish
and Christian worship by actually providing a new definition of the cultic category.
At the heart of this interpretation there is the focus on the contrast between the Jew-
ish and Christian systems, starting out from the context of the letter. In effect, Paul
has just finished discussing (in chapters 9–11) the problem of Israel, and, only in that
context, he has employed the term λατρεία (cf. Rom 9:4), precisely with reference to
Jewish rites. However, as we have shown, the reprise of some semantic fields from
the letter as a whole establishes a broader link, not only with Rom 9–11.24 In other
words, it cannot be the immediate context alone which is decisive; better a reference
to the broader structure of the whole of the Letter to the Romans.
For example, the reading of a Lutheran stamp opposes the Gospel and the Law.
Hence the idea that Paul rejects his Jewish past and with it the related forms of worship.
Not infrequently, such an opposition has been emphasised from the starting point
of the apostle’s own texts (for example, Phil 3:7-8.13). However, a more careful study
seeks to avoid falling into the trap of such a preconceived interpretation. It seems, in
fact, that Paul’s problem with Judaism is nothing to do with the cultic system of Israel
but focuses, first and foremost, on the substantial rejection of Jesus by many Jews,
and then on the insistence of the Jewish Christians on the need for pagans to become
Jews in order to enter the people of God. Whenever Paul expresses himself critically
over the Law or the Jews, these aspects emerge. On the other hand, it is more difficult
to be certain that Paul rejected the Jewish worship entirely when he became a Chris-
tian. Within the authentic epistles, the very few references to the sacrificial worship
of Israel are not critical but, rather, neutral (cf. 1 Cor 9:13; 10:18). The statement that

e quelle moderne sono accumunate dalla difficoltà di rendere adeguatamente il significato e oscillano
tra ‘spirituale,’ ‘razionale’ e ‘verbale’.” Also Ian W. Scott (“Your Reasoning Worship,” 532) comes to similar
conclusions; he writes: “Perhaps a good compromise would be to render Paul’s λογικὴ λατρεία as a ‘rea-
soning act of worship’.”
22 Cf. Peterson, “Worship and Ethics in Romans 12,” 272–276.
23 Cf. Thompson, “Romans 12.1–2 and Paul’s Vision for Worship.”
24 Making the most of the expression διὰ τῶν οἰκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, rather than a link with chapters 9–11
(where the verb οἰκτείρειν occurs in Rom 9:30), Evans (“Romans 12.1–2,” 10) underlines the connection
with chapter 8. He speculates: “If a connection is being sought, the initial injunction of the parenesis
‘to present your bodies a living sacrifice’ might suggest a resumption (though without any mention of
the Spirit) of what had been said in ch. 8 about the quickening and redemption of the bodies of Chris-
tians.”

800 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

“Christ, our Passover, has been sacrificed” (1 Cor 5:7) is undoubtedly very full of
meaning but it does not challenge the original value of the practice. Moreover, there
are no certain data to show that Paul did not take part in the worship in the temple
at Jerusalem. On the contrary – although the statement is from Luke and not from
Paul – the evidence of Acts reveals the opposite (cf. Acts 21:15-26; 24:17-18). To
make a neat opposition between Judaism and Christianity in Paul’s time is wholly
unwarranted; equally so is the denial of the importance of the temple in Jerusalem
for the Christian communities as well as for Paul himself.
There is a still more decisive factor which prevents us from considering the Pau-
line statement as a rejection of the forms of Jewish worship. In the rhetorical struc-
ture of the Latter to the Romans, faith in Jesus prevents the thought that it is neces-
sary to become Jews in order then to be Christians. On the other hand, though, Paul
insists that the majority of the gentiles, who have become believers in Rome, must
not assume an air of superiority towards the Jews (cf. Rom 11:13-25). He recalls that
“the gifts and the call of God are irrevocable” (Rom 11:29) and he does not dare to go
any further with regard to the worship.
To grasp what Paul intends to say at the beginning of the paracletic part, we have
to return to the beginning of the letter, to Rom 1:18-32, that is, to those statements
which follow immediately on the so-called propositio. It is not necessary to be sur-
prised if, when describing the behaviour of humanity in Christ, Paul wishes to echo
the language which he has already used to describe sinful humanity. In other words,
the beginning of the second part of the letter is calling for participation in the re-
versal of that movement towards the bottom described in the first part. The apostle
had begun the corpus of his writing by emphasising that the root of the sin which
led to the revelation of the wrath of God was the refusal to glorify and thank God
(cf. Rom 1:21). “Glorifying (δοξάζειν)” and “giving thanks (εὐχαριστεῖν)” are essen-
tially acts of worship as is confirmed by the fearful exchange of which the apostle
speaks twice: “They exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling
mortal man, birds, quadrupeds and reptiles” (Rom 1:23); and, shortly afterwards:
“They exchanged the truth of God for a lie and worshipped and served the creation
instead of the Creator” (Rom 1:25). However, the outcome of this does not signify
in itself the end of the worship, despite its deviation in its dealings with other real-
ities than God. If Paul had used technical cultic terms frequently, the link between
the term λατρεία in Rom 12:1 and the verb ἐλάτρευσαν in Rom 1:25 would not have
any special significance. However, as we know, the apostle rarely employs such lan-
guage. The verb σεβάζομαι (“worship,” or also “adore”) in Rom 1:25 is a hapax legom-
enon, while the substantive σέβασμα (“idol” or “object of worship”) occurs only in
2 Thess 2:4. The verb λατρεύω (“serve” in a religious context) occurs in Rom 1:9.25
and in Phil 3:3. It is precisely the rarity of the use of this terminology that indicates
the link between the beginning of Rom 12 and Rom 1.

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 801
Matteo Crimella

While men refused to offer God true worship, their reasonings became empty
(cf. Rom 1:21) and their dull heart was darkened (cf. Rom 1:22). The consequence
of all that was the decree of God who “gave them up to a base mind (εἰς ἀδόκιμον
νοῦν)” (Rom 1:28). In the light of this discourse, Paul’s call for a “renewal of the mind
(τῇ ἀνακαινώσει τοῦ νοὸς)” to “discern (δοκιμάζειν)” the will of God (cf. Rom 12:2)
assumes a particular significance. Still in the light of the first chapter, there is a better
understanding of the sense of the debated and difficult term λογικός (Rom 12:1). In
the criticism of the pagan worship (according to a tradition well attested in the Old
Testament [cf. Isa 44; Wis 13–14]), the offering of the self to the true God in re-
sponse to his mercy is something reasonable by contrast with the disordered mental-
ity which addresses the lie (cf. Rom 1:21.25).
But there is more. If the result of the rebellion is impurity (ἀκαθαρσία)” and
the dishonouring of the “bodies (σώματα)” (Rom 1:24), Paul exhorts his readers to
offer their “bodies (σώματα)” (Rom 12:1), that is, their entire person. It follows from
that that the undertone is ethical.
If we summarise the different points of contrast, we can represent the connection
thus:

Rom 1 Rom 12

Wrath of God (v. 18) Mercy of God (v. 1)

Refusal to worship and thank God (v. 21) (Thanking) by offering a sacrifice (v. 1)
Dishonouring the body (v. 24) Presenting the body to God (v. 1)
Impurity (v. 24) Holiness (v. 1)
Madness, idolatrous worship (vv. 21–23.25) Reasonable worship (v. 1)
Base mind (v. 28) Renewed mind (v. 2)
Refusal to recognise God (v. 28) Discernment and obedience (v. 2)
Decree of God (v. 32) Will of God (v. 2)

These two passages, placed at the beginning of the two major sections of the let-
ter, are not in clear contrast by chance. The correspondences do not seem to be there
by pure coincidence.
As we have already observed, Paul employs the participle ζῶσαν, thus creating
an oxymoron. Perhaps, however, the more satisfactory explanation comes from
the relation between this term and chapter 6 where Paul exhorts:

So you too reckon yourselves to be dead to sin but living to God in Christ Jesus. There-
fore, do not let sin reign in your mortal bodies to obey its desires, nor wish to present
your members as weapons of injustice for sin but present yourselves to God as living from
the dead, and your members as instruments of justice for God (Rom 6:11-13).

802 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

In the light of this text, it appears again that Paul is not contrasting the Chris-
tian and Jewish forms of worship; rather, he is reflecting how the correct Chris-
tian orientation towards God contrasts with the insane idolatry which refuses to rec-
ognise and thank the Creator. Humanity in Christ is called to offer a worship that is
fitting for the true God. In other words, it is by being dead to sin and obedient to God
that Christians fulfil his will.
It would be quite wrong to fix the attention on the term λατρεία alone. The brevity
of the reference indicates that worship is not the subject about which Paul is speaking;
nor does the apostle intend to deal with the form, the organisation and the practice of
Christian worship. Rather, the term λατρεία is a predicate or, better, a complement.
Paul is presenting a holistic vision of life which he identifies with worship. In doing
this, he widens the understanding of the type of worship valued by God. True wor-
ship is inseparably bound up with Christian behaviour. However, starting from this
text, it would be erroneous to conclude that Paul is redefining worship by reducing it
to Christian ethics. The whole of existence can be worship, but worship is not simply
daily obedience. The concept of worship is wider than the specific vocabulary which
Paul employs on this occasion and, more generally, in his letters.
To sum up, in Rom 12:1-2, Paul is not distancing himself from Jewish worship.
The employment of cultic language in a non-cultic way epitomises what is found in
some other passages of the Letter to the Romans (cf. Rom 1:9; 3:25; 15:16) and else-
where (cf. Phil 2:17). In our text, Paul is not defining Christian worship over against
its Jewish counterpart; rather, he is offering a vision of the Christian life as a whole.
It is not isolated within an airtight compartment, separated from the times and places
where worship is offered. Life itself becomes an act of offering, in particular a “rea-
sonable” worship by contrast with the idolatry which rejects the Creator.

6. Christian Worship

If, then, Paul does not intend to oppose the two worships, Jewish and Christian, his
words imply that, like the ancient Israel before them, the Christian believers should
also be distinguished for their worship. The central point of the discourse is precisely
this: Christian worship is conceived in a different way. It is far from being a spiritu-
alisation of the worship.25 Such a reduction is excluded by the object of the sacrifice,
“your bodies.”
In this connection, Käsemann’s thesis about the λογικὴ λατρεία26 has been fierce-
ly challenged today. For the German exegete, the Pauline expression played a fun-

25 Cf. Balz, “λατρεύω,” 851–852 and Betz, “Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik,” 208–210.
26 Cf. Käsemann, “Gottesdienst im Alltag der Welt (zu Rm 12).”

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 803
Matteo Crimella

damental role in the polemic against the Hellenistic worships some of which had
undergone a process of interiorisation and spiritualisation in a mystical sense.27 Such
an expression was intended to characterise the oratio infusa of praise rendered to
the divinity as true worship on the part of a man filled with the Spirit and so rep-
resenting the entire creation. In the two Hermetic texts quoted above, the λογικὴ
λατρεία indicates a type of intimist prayer, begun and ended within the individuality
of the initiate. Käsemann interpreted these features in a Christian sense, affirming
that the Holy Spirit acts in such a way as to make an individual who prays one of
his instruments and spokesmen.28 However, this reading has been profoundly chal-
lenged: firstly, the texts referred to by Käsemann are late (the Corpus hermeticum is
from the III century A.D.). Moreover, Käsemann appears to overlook the Old Testa-
ment background29; and it was the prophets who indicated that God was honoured
not so much by means of ritual observance but by a genuine, spiritual, ethical and
existential involvement (cf. Isa 1:10-16; 29:13; Mic 6:6-8). In other words, accord-
ing to what is called the prophetic kérygma, worship cannot be separated from life
(cf. Hos 6:6). God was seeking penitence, faith and obedience, above all in the rees-
tablishment of justice and holiness within the Christian community.
Starting off against this background, it is understandable that Paul certainly
does not refer to bloody sacrifices on the altars on the part of Christians; rather, it
must be supposed that the apostle is indicating the nature of human existence in
its physicality, as also the body as the means through which created beings enter
into mutual communication.30 In other words, Paul has the courage to “secularise”
cultic language, showing that the sacred space is not separated from existence, as if
commandeered to be assigned for the sacrifice; rather, it corresponds to the daily
activity, in the richness of human relations. Therefore, he is not developing any idea
of replacement: instead, he is simply insisting on an existence which is pervaded
entirely by the Holy Spirit and participates in the Christ event, coherent with faith
and consequent upon it.31

27 Cf. the documentation concerning the philosophical polemic against the worship collected by R. Penna
(L’ambiente storico-culturale delle origini cristiane, 151–152).
28 Cf. Käsemann, An die Römer, 316.
29 Cf. Peterson, “Worship and Ethics in Romans 12,” 272–274.
30 Cf. Dunn, The Theology of Paul the Apostle, 543–544.
31 Hans Dieter Betz (“Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik,” 212) explains: “Die Benutzung
dieser Opfersprache setzt den Apostel dazu in stand, zugleich praktisch und theologisch zu reden. Als
eine Religion (λατρεία) ist das christliche Leben praktisch durch seine Struktur als Opfer; zugleich aber
ist es ethisch, eschatologisch und der Vernunft zugänglich.”

804 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806
 Λογικὴ λατρεία (Rom 12:1)

Conclusion

If the pathway which we have followed makes any sense, it follows that, by breaking
every semantic link bound up with the worship or sacrality and, instead, attributing
to the expression λογικὴ λατρεία a secular semantic, it follows that Paul is operating
in two directions. On the one hand, he avoids the trap of supersessionism with regard
to the Jewish worship; on the other hand, he excludes a spiritualisation (or interior-
isation) of Greek religious practices. In other words, Paul’s language is distinct both
from the great tradition of Israel in which he was born and from the Hellenistic
world in which his proclamation runs its course. This is to say that the mystery of
Christ is expressed in different languages but is prisoner of none because unique and
highly individual. In one of the highest examples of his teaching, Paul shows how
much he owes to two worlds but also how free he is from both in order to proclaim
the Christian message.
Translated by Michael Tait

Bibliography
Aletti, J.-N., La Lettera ai Romani. Chiavi di lettura (Roma: Borla 2011).
Balz, H., “λατρεύω,” Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 2 ed. (eds. H. Balz –
G. Schneider) (Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln: Kohlhammer 1992) II, 851–852.
Bartsch, H.-W., “λογικός,” Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum Neuen Testament, 2 ed. (eds. H. Balz –
G. Schneider) (Stuttgart – Berlin – Köln: Kohlhammer 1992) 876–878.
Betz, H.D., “Das Problem der Grundlagen der paulinischen Ethik (Röm 12:1-2),” Zeitschrift für
Theologie und Kirche 85 (1988) 199–218.
Blass, F. – Debrunner, A. – Rehkopf, F., Grammatik des neutestamentlichen Griechisch, 18 ed.
(Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht 2001).
Dunn, J.D.G., Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making 2; Grand Rapids, MI –
Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans 2009).
Dunn, J.D.G., The Theology of Paul the Apostle (Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK: Eerd-
mans 1988).
Evans, C., “Romans 12.1-2: The True Worship,” Dimensions de la vie chrétienne (Rm 12–13)
(ed. L. De Lorenzi) (Serie monografica di “Benedictina”. Sezione biblico-ecumenica 4;
Rome: Abbaye de S. Paul 1979) 7–33.
Gupta, N.K., “What ‘Mercies of God’? Oiktirmos in Romans 12:1 against Its Septuagintal Back-
ground,” Bulletin for Biblical Research 22 (2012) 81–96.
Jodoin, D., “Rm 12, 1-2 une intrigue discursive. De l’offrande des membres à l’offrande des
corps,” Études théologiques et religieuses 85 (2010) 499–512.
Käsemann, E., “Gottesdienst im Alltag der Welt (zu Rm 12),” Judentum Urchristentum Kirche.
Festschrift für Joachim Jeremias (ed. W. Eltester) (Berlin: Töpelmann 1960) 165–171.

V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806 805
Matteo Crimella

Käsemann, E., An die Römer (Handbuch zum Neuen Testament 8a; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck]
1973).
Marcato, M., Qual è la volontà di Dio (Rm 12:2b). Il discernimento cristiano nella lettera ai Ro-
mani (Supplementi alla Rivista biblica 53; Bologna: Dehoniane 2012).
Markschies, C., Hellenisierung des Christentums. Sinn und Unsinn einer historischen Deutungs-
kategorie (Leipzig: Evangelische Verlagsanstalt 2012).
Moo, D.J., The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament;
Grand Rapids, MI – Cambridge, UK: Eerdmans 1996).
Palinuro, M., “Rm 12:1–2: le radici dell’etica paolina,” Rivista biblica 52 (2004) 145–181.
Penna, R., L’ambiente storico-culturale delle origini cristiane. Una documentazione ragionata,
4 ed. (La Bibbia nella storia 7; Bologna: Dehoniane 2000).
Penna, R., Lettera ai Romani. Introduzione, versione, commento. Volume unico (Scritti delle
origini cristiane 6; Bologna: Dehoniane 2010).
Peterson, D., “Worship and Ethics in Romans 12,” Tyndale House Bulletin 44 (1993) 271–288.
Pitta, A., L’evangelo di Paolo. Introduzione alle lettere autoriali (Graphé 7; Torino: Elledici 2013).
Pitta, A., Lettera ai Romani. Nuova versione, introduzione e commento, 3 ed. (I libri biblici.
Nuovo Testamento 6; Milano: Paoline 2009).
Rodríguez Adrados, F., Historia de la lengua griega de los orígenes a nuestros días (Madrid:
Gredos 1999).
Scott, I.W., “‘Your Reasoning Worship’: λογικός in Romans 12:1 and Paul’s Ethics of Rational
Deliberation,” The Journal of Theological Studies 69 (2018) 500–532.
Smiga, G., “Romans 12:1–2 and 15:30–32,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 53 (1991) 268–270.
Thompson, M.B., “Romans 12.1–2 and Paul’s Vision for Worship,” A Vision for the Church.
Studies in Early Christian Ecclesiology in Honour of J.P.M. Sweet (eds. M. Bockmuehl –
M.B. Thompson) (Edinburgh: Clark 1997) 121–132.
Usener, K., “Zur Sprache der Septuaginta,” Septuaginta Deutsch. Erläuterungen und Kommenta-
re zum griechischen Alten Testament. I. Genesis bis Makkabäer (eds. W. Kraus – M. Karrer)
(Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2011) 40–51.

806 V E R B U M V I TA E 3 9 / 3 ( 2 0 2 1 ) 791–806