(Presented at SNTS 2008. Published in Jerusalem Perspective) (Blue sections omitted from the published version)

Summary

Paul mentions “living sacrifices” and “reasonable/spiritual service” without explanation, as if the readers would be familiar with these concepts. Similar vocabulary in Jewish Hellenistic and rabbinic literature suggests that Paul is referring to bloodless animal offerings. Offerings which were given to the Temple but which were inappropriate for sacrificing for technical reasons (e.g. they were female instead of male) could not be un-offered. So, although they were sacrifices, they were kept alive as temple property till they became blemished, and any profit from them was “for the Lord”. Paul is telling believers to live unblemished lives “for the Lord”.

Introduction

The beginning of Romans 12 is the transition from theory to practice. In previous chapters the church was shown to be related to the nation of Israel historically and theologically, with both similarities and differences. Paul now wishes to tell them how they should behave. He says that they are a holy offering (vv. 1-2) so they do not belong to themselves but to the body of Christ (vv. 3-5), which they serve by means of different gifts (vv. 6-8). The next chapters contain practical teaching on practical morality, ending in chapter 15 where Paul returns to the theme of an offering: “I serve the gospel of God like a priest, so that the Gentiles may become an acceptable offering” (v.16).

This inclusio harks back to some unusual language at the start of this section where Paul refers to “living holy sacrifices” (θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν) and “logical service (λογικὴν λατρείαν). A “living sacrifice” is an oxymoron because offerings do not become sacrifices till they killed or poured out (in the case of drink offerings) or burned (in the case of incense or meal offerings). The word λογικὴν is difficult to understand because it occurs so rarely in this context. Translators are divided between something like “spiritual” (by relating it to the divine logos) or “rational” (by relating it to a more mundane sense of logos). This modifies λατρεία which can have the sense of worship or more general service to God. None of the combinations of “spiritual” or “rational” and “service” or “worship” readily fits into the context of Romans 12, where the offering is a result of gratitude to God, and not to reason, and where the believers are exhorted serve by means of their physical lifestyle of good morals, generosity and hospitality. Spiritualising this or making it a result of reason would undermine Paul’s emphasis on a response to grace by means of practical living.

The term λογικός occurs in the NT only at 1 Peter 2.2, where it is related to a similar context: “yearn for λογικόν pure milk like newborn infants, so that you may grow up….(5) … a spiritual house, a holy priesthood, offering spiritual sacrifices acceptable to God”. This parallel tends to support the sense of λογικός as “spiritual” and Philo’s use also supports this, when he says: “that which is precious in the sight of God is not the number of victims immolated but the true purity of a λογικόν spirit”[1]. However λογικός is also used as a reference to bloodless sacrifice when the Testament of Levi speaks of angels who: “present to the Lord a pleasing odour, a λογικόν and bloodless oblation”.[2] This concurs with the frequent assertion in the OT and NT that God pleasure in bloodless sacrifices,[3] and this meaning also fits the context of Romans 12.1 (where sacrifices remain alive) and 1 Peter 2 (were the λογικόν milk gives life).

All this helps to suggest that the λογικὴν λατρείαν is bloodless worship, or service without sacrifice, but this brings us back to the perplexing phrase “living holy sacrifices”. Bloodless sacrifice normally consists of incense because an animal which is still alive has not yet been sacrificed. I will propose here that the phrase “living holy sacrifices” refers to the common first century Temple practice of keeping certain animal offerings “pastured till blemished” – ie they were kept alive to serve the Temple so long as they remained pure.

Difficulties of studying first century Temple practice.

First century Temple practice is difficult to study because the main sources are the Old Testament, which is too old, and the rabbinic corpus which, (on the whole), is too recent. The few references in contemporary sources like Josephus and Philo are often useful but they do not provide a comprehensive picture, so they can do little more than confirm or question a few details in the two major sources.

Rabbinic traditions are difficult to use for studying first century Judaism because the earliest written versions date from long after the Temple was destroyed, and although many early rabbis are cited, it is difficult to determine when these attributions are accurate. In recent decades the dating of some rabbinic material has become more certain, largely through the painstaking work of Neusner and his colleagues. The general consensus is that halakhic traditions (that is, traditions concerned with the practice of the Law) are usually reliable with regard to the date of attributions, and that some anonymous halakhic traditions can be dated with reference to the datable ones, but all other rabbinic traditions are still very difficult to date. These principles were already accepted and summarised in Stemberger’s Introduction to Talmud and Midrash[4] and they have been employed by scholars such as E. P. Sanders.[5]

This present study has risen out of a wider project called The Traditions of the Rabbis in the Era of the New Testament in which I am attempting to apply these agreed dating principles in order to identify all the traditions for which we have evidence that they originated before AD 70. This project is, in some ways, a reversal of Strack and Billerbeck[6] because instead of being centered on the New Testament, its ordering, focus and context is always the rabbinic corpus. However, by collecting together all the rabbinic traditions from roughly the same time period as the New Testament, I am discovering that these two sets of literature compliment and illuminate each other.

Sacrifices left to “pasture till blemished”

One rabbinic concept which may throw light on Paul's language in Romans 12.1 is the sacrifice which is “pastured till blemished”. This is an offering which cannot be slaughtered for some reason or other, but because it has been offered to God, it cannot go back into secular ownership. Therefore this type of animal would be pastured as the property of the Temple, but only so long as it remains pure and perfect. As soon as it had any kind of blemish which would cause it to be rejected as a sacrifice, it was killed and sold in the market. Any profits from the sale of the carcass, and presumably from the sale of milk or wool while it was alive, went to the Temple funds.

This is a fairly widespread concept in rabbinic literature, where such animals are usually referred to by the phrase “pastured till blemished”. This phrase implies that most animals will gain some kind of blemish eventually, but in the mean time they lived like normal farm animal, but in Temple ownership. The three things which characterised these animals were therefore that they had been offered as sacrifice, they were holy (i.e. unblemished) and they were alive. This matches their description by Paul as θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν “living, holy sacrifices”.

Reasons why an animal might be designated as “pastured till blemished” are many and various but usually originate with confusion about whether an animal should be offered, or some technical reason why it cannot be sacrificed even though it is clearly given as an offering. For example, if a lamb or goat had been set aside for Passover and subsequently lost, and the owners designated a substitute, what happened if the original animal turned up? They had both been designated as an offering to God by the owner, so it would be sacrilege to simply take one back into normal ownership. Clearly they both belonged to God, but each family could only offer one Passover sacrifice, so what could you do with a Passover offering which could not be sacrificed? The solution was to give the extra lamb or goat to the Temple. It was pastured by either the Temple or the offerer (this is not specified in the traditions) till it was blemished by a graze or illness, at which point was no longer suitable as an offering. It was then legal to sell the animal without committing sacrilege, and the money could be spent on a peace offering instead (m.Pes.9.6).

Mishnah contains many other examples of situations which might result in an offering which cannot be sacrificed. These include:

a female animal picked by mistake for an offering when only a male was suitable (m.Pes.9.7);
giving an offering which was not due (m.Yeb.11.5, 7);
buying too many offerings (m.Ker.6.6);
an offering by someone who died before he brought it (m.BQ.9.11);
an animal which might have been confused with an unsuitable animal (m.Zeb.8.1),
or with animals presented for other types of offering (m.Zeb.8.2-3),
or with animals in a flock it got lost in (m.Bek.9.7);
a firstborn which was born at exactly the same time as a twin (m.Bek.2.6-8);
an offering which bears an offspring while waiting to be sacrificed (m.Tem.3.3).

In any of these and other situations, where an animal had been offered and could not be sacrificed, or there was confusion about which animal had been offered, the doubt was resolved by keeping the animal pastured, in the service of the Temple, till it was blemished.

Dating an example text

Most of the discussions about this concept originate in the second century. This is partly because so few traditions survive from the first century, so that most discussions about everything in the first century occur in the second century, and partly because there was a renewed interest during the second century in offerings which could be made without performing a sacrifice. This renewed interest was because after Temple was destroyed, Jews still wanted to fulfil the Torah as much as possible, so any form of offering which could be performed without the need of the Temple provided a way in which they could continue to bring offerings to God. A few traditions provide evidence that this practice dates back to Temple times. The following is an example which concerns an animal which was designated as a sin offering, but the offerer then discovered that he had not broken the Law, so the sin offering could not be sacrificed. This might happen if, for example, he ate some untithed food and discovered subsequently that it had been tithed after all.

He who brings a suspensive guilt offering, and is informed that he did not commit a sin - if this was before it was slaughtered, "it [the offering] goes forth and pastures among the flock," - the words of R. Meir [T4]. And sages say, "It is set out to pasture until it is blemished, then it is sold, and its proceeds fall [to the Temple treasury] as a freewill offering."

R. Eliezer [b. Hyrcanus, T2] says, "It is offered up. For if it does not come on account of this sin, lo, it comes on account of some other sin".

If after it was slaughtered, he is [so] informed, the blood is to be poured out. And the meat goes forth to the place of burning. [If the man is informed after] the blood is [properly] tossed, the meat is to be eaten.

R. Jose [b. Halfta, T4] says, "Even if [he is informed while] the blood is in the cup, it is to be tossed, and the meat is to be eaten."[7]

A guilt offering was often brought by pious people who were not sure whether they had committed a sin or not, so they brought an offering just in case (cf. m.Ker.6.3). This debate concerns a guilt offering which was no longer relevant because the person discovered that they had not sinned after all. The majority agreed that this offering should be pastured till blemished, and then it should be brought as a freewill offering and eaten. Meir said that this only applied if the discovery occurred before it was slaughtered. Eliezer said that this never applied because the person had no-doubt committed some other sin which they did not know about. Jose argued that it applied even if the discovery was made when the blood was tossed against the altar. Jose quoted “Even if the blood is in the cup” from an ancient tradition about Hanan the Egyptian, but he does not bother to point this out because he assumes that other scholars will recognise it.

This section contains three different traditions from three very different periods, so it is not the record of an actual debate but a later compilation of opinions. The earliest individual is Eliezer b. Hyrcanus whose traditions originate from roughly AD 80–120 and who often represents conservative opinions which disagree with the majority. The next is that of R. Meir from about AD 140–165 whose opinions are very authoritative but who was often opposed by the majority, as on this occasion where “the Sages” represent the opinion of the rest of the rabbis at the time. The last individual, R. Jose b. Halfta (who was contemporary with Meir), presents a much older tradition originating from Hanan the Egyptian who probably dates back to Temple times.

Although Hanan is not named, the other rabbis would be expected to recognise the author of this tradition, because it was linked with a famous situation when one of the pair of goats on the Day of Atonement died. This prompted the problem of whether one could simply replace the dead goat, or whether one had to select a new pair and cast the lots again to chose one “for the Lord” and one “for Azazel”, and then put the left-over goat from the original pair to “pasture till blemished”. Some said that a single goat could be replaced only up till the time of the lots, but Hanan said that this was possible even up to the time of the offering itself – “Even if the blood is in the cup, he brings its fellow”[8] – i.e. it was never too late, so there was no spare goat to “pasture till blemished”. Jose used this same argument to say that it was never too late to change the guilt offering into a fellowship offering.

Both Hanan and Eliezer were witnesses to the practice of putting animals out to “pasture till blemished” before AD 70 when the destruction of the Temple caused a huge upheaval in Jewish practice. So although this debate took place several decades later, it makes little sense unless the same practice was well established and known to have been enacted during Temple times. Akiva, in the early second century, appears to have popularised this practice,[9] possibly as a way of allowing people to continue bringing sin offerings even though the Temple was destroyed. However, during the second century, there were increasing misgivings about this, and the procedure was gradually demoted. Simeon. b. Yohai [T4, mid 2nd C] said you could sell a pastured offering even before it became blemished (m.Tem.3.3), so the setting aside of a sacrificial animal became almost theoretical and the only actual act which was necessary was setting aside the money. By the end of the second century, when any hope of rebuilding a Temple was past, Jose b. Judah [T5] said the sacrificial animal could be eaten by the owner when it became blemished, apparently without any need to set aside money (m.Bek.9.7). This had the effect of making the sacrifice almost entirely theoretical in this circumstance.

The Practice and Paul’s Imagery

The future development of this practice is irrelevant to the first century practice which Paul alludes to in Romans 12. In the first century, so far as we can ascertain, an offering which could not be sacrificed as kept alive in service of the Temple so long as it remained pure, and was then sold in the market on behalf of the Temple.

We do not know exactly what happened in practice – whether these animals were pastured by the person offering them, or in a special Temple enclosure. It is likely that they were kept separate from other animals because one common reason for designating them in the first place was confusion about which individual animal had been offered. Probably these animals were kept in a special enclosure at Jerusalem, because many of them would have already been brought to Jerusalem when the confusion or technical difficulties arose, and because this would clearly mark them out as belonging to the Temple. Or perhaps they were kept in a special enclosure on the farm they came from if they had not already been brought. Either way, they had to be kept separate, cared for carefully, and examined regularly to see if any blemish had occurred.

Any profit from these animals belonged to the Temple, so one could say that while they lived they served the temple, but this only continued so long as they remained unblemished. This fits very well with the concept which Paul is expressing in Romans 12 where he warns believers to remain holy and separate, “not conformed to this present world” (v. 2). While they remain unblemished, all that they produced would be counted as belonging to God, so they should regard all their gifts, such as prophecy, service, or teaching, as being done in God’s service (vv. 6-8).

Conclusions

The reason Paul compared believers to these living unblemished sacrifices was therefore to emphasise that their service continued only so long as they remained pure. This passage acts as an introduction to a large body of moral teaching in the next few chapters. In order to encourage believers to follow this lifestyle, Paul wanted to show that a great deal is at stake, because they can only continue in God’s service so long as they remain unblemished. The body of Christ, of which they are members, will only profit from them while they remain holy. The concept of offering themselves up to God is not something which is done in a moment, but continues through the rest of their lives, and is contingent on moral issues which Paul is about to elaborate.

No doubt some of Paul’s non-Jewish readers would miss the nuances of what he was saying, but the underlying meaning is clear. They would perhaps consider that the phrase “living sacrifice” is strange, and wonder why this was called their “logical service”. Perhaps their Jewish friends would explain to them that λογικός referred to a bloodless worship and perhaps they would tell them about the living sacrifices which were pastured till blemished. But even if these things were not explained, they could still understand Paul reasonably well without this insight, just as the church has done during most of its history.

Rabbinic Reflections on Living Sacrifices at Romans 12.1

Summary: Paul mentions “living sacrifices” and “reasonable/spiritual service” without explanation, as if the readers would be familiar with these concepts. Similar vocabulary in Jewish Hellenistic and rabbinic literature suggests that Paul is referring to bloodless animal offerings. Offerings which were given to the Temple but which were inappropriate for sacrificing for technical reasons (e.g. they were female instead of male) could not be un-offered. So, although they were sacrifices, they were kept alive as temple property till they became blemished, and any profit from them was “for the Lord”. Paul is telling believers to live unblemished lives “for the Lord”.

Romans 12.1 Παρακαλῶ οὖν ὑμᾶς, ἀδελφοί, διὰ τῶν οἰκτειρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ, παραστῆσαι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν θυσίαν ζῶσαν ἁγίαν εὐάρεστον τῷ θεῷ, τὴν λογικὴν λατρείαν ὑμῶν.

Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God – this is your true and proper worship.

Philo Spec.Leg. 1.277: And this command is a symbol of nothing else but of the fact that in the eyes of God it is not the number of things sacrificed that is accounted valuable, but the purity of the rational spirit of the sacrificer.

Testament of Levi 3.6: the angels of the presence of the Lord, who minister and make propitiation to the Lord for all the ignorances of the righteous; and they offer to the Lord a reasonable sweet-smelling savour, and a bloodless offering.

Traditions of the Rabbis in the Era of the New Testament by D. Instone-Brewer (Eerdmans 2002- ) – see Introduction to Dating in vol.1 and at www.T-R-E-N-T.com

Mishnah contains many other examples of situations which might result in an offering which cannot be sacrificed so that it was “pastured till blemished”. These include:

a female animal picked by mistake when only a male was suitable (m.Pes.9.7);
giving an offering which was not due (m.Yeb.11.5, 7);
buying too many offerings (m.Ker.6.6);
an offering by someone who died before he brought it (m.BQ.9.11);
an animal which might have been confused with an unsuitable animal (m.Zeb.8.1),
or with animals presented for other types of offering (m.Zeb.8.2-3),
or with animals in a flock it got lost in (m.Bek.9.7);
a firstborn which was born at exactly the same time as a twin (m.Bek.2.6-8);
an offering which bears an offspring while waiting to be sacrificed (m.Tem.3.3).

Mishnah Keritot 6.1: He who brings a suspensive guilt offering, and is informed that he did not commit a sin - if this was before it was slaughtered, "it [the offering] goes forth and pastures among the flock," - the words of R. Meir [T4]. And sages say, "It is set out to pasture until it is blemished, then it is sold, and its proceeds fall [to the Temple treasury] as a freewill offering."

R. Eliezer [b. Hyrcanus, T2] says, "It is offered up. For if it does not come on account of this sin, lo, it comes on account of some other sin".

R. Jose [b. Halfta, T4] says, "Even if [he is informed while] the blood is in the cup, it is to be tossed, and the meat is to be eaten." [based on Neusner’s translation]

[1] Sp.Leg. 1.277

[2] T.Levi. 3.6

[3] esp. 1 Sam.15.22; Prov.21.3; Is.1.11; Mt.9.13 etc.; Phil.4.18

[4] Hermann L Strack’s Einleitung in Talmud und Midrasch (München 1887), ET Introduction to the Talmud and Midrash was revised (or more properly, rewritten) by Günter Stemberger (Oscar Beck: München, 1982) ET by Markus N A Bockmuehl (London: T & T Clark, 1991; Minneapolis: Augsburg Fortress 1992, 1996). The issues of dating are dealt with mainly on pp.57-62 (page numbers from the 1996 revised ed.). He said that attributions have been found to be generally accurate (pp. 63, 149) and that the structure of the arguments can help to identify early anonymous sayings when they have been assumed or discussed by named rabbis (p.65).

[5] E. P. Sanders, Judaism: Practice & Belief, 63 bce–66 ce (London; Philadelphia: SCM; Trinity Press International, 1992). On p. 6 he states the principles he used for selecting early rabbinic sources: “I use only passages that are attributed to a pre-70 Pharisee or to the Schools of Hillel and Shammai. Exceptions to this rule will be justified case by case.”

[6] Hermann L. Strack and Paul Billerbeck, Kommentar zum Neuen Testament aus Talmud und Midrasch (München: Beck, 1922-1961).

[7] Mishnah Keritot 6.1, based on Neusner’s translation.

[8] This tradition is found at b.Yom.63b; cf. b.Tem.6b; b.Zeb.34b; 74a. Its dating is discussed in relation to m.Yom.6.1 in my Traditions of the Rabbis in the Era of the New Testament, vol.2A Feasts and Sabbaths: Passover and Atonement (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, forthcoming).

[9] When this concept is attributed to an individual it is almost always Akiva – see See m.Pes.9.6-8; m.Bek.2.6-8. In m.Bek.2.9 it is on the lips of Tarfon, but only because Akiba already mentioned it a few times. This does not mean that Akiva is the author of the concept, but he probably popularised it.

Publications by David Instone-Brewer