I am wondering if anyone knows how the translators of the ESV came to translate 'logikan latrian' as spiritual worship instead of reasonable service as the KJV and NKJV do?

(The NIV, CSB, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV also have similar translations to the ESV. )

Any thoughts?

Paul has in view not simply a worship offered by the mind, but, in contrast to the Hermetic devotion, a worship expressed in the bodily reality of everyday living (Schlier; cf. Leenhardt); similarly mutatis mutandis in contrast to Philo (Ortkemper, 33). The implied contrast with ritual worship (Murray) should again not be overplayed (Cranfield, Wilckens), but again not be disregarded (cf. particularly Käsemann, and see above on θυσίαν ζῶσαν …); if Paul is indeed trying to set out alternative identity markers for the new community of Christians (see 12:1–15:13 Introduction), the worship here will be distinct from the cultic hallmarks of traditional Judaism (against Casel, 45). The distinctively comparable language of 1 Pet 2:2, 5 (τὸ λογικὸν ἄδολον γάλα … πνευματικὰς θυσίας εὐπροσδέκτους τῷ θεῷ) may well have been influenced by Paul (Käsemann). The thought of “spiritual worship” as that which is consistent with the truth revealed in Christ (Cranfield) reads too much into the wording here, though of course it follows from the overall context and from διὰ τῶν οἱκτιρμῶν τοῦ θεοῦ (TDNT 4:143) in particular. At this point, however, it would be closer to Paul’s thought to say that the worship he calls for is λογική as being proper for man the creature———the logical expression of his creatureliness properly understood, and lived out (in contrast to 1:21, 25). Evans, “Romans 12:1–2,” 20–22, and Betz, “Problem,” 212, understandably resist the rendering “spiritual” and prefer “rational”; but neb (“by mind and heart”) and njb (“as sensible people”) lose more than they gain.
Dunn, J. D. G. (2002). Vol. 38B: Word Biblical Commentary : Romans 9-16. Word Biblical Commentary (711). Dallas: Word, Incorporated.

This is probably their thinking.

Here is another explanation:

This, Paul says, is your spiritual worship, an expression that could be understood as KJV, “your reasonable service.” There are problems relating to both adjective and noun. Today most interpreters understand the adjective as spiritual, which makes good sense and is certainly in mind. But it is hard to think that the connection with “reason” has been completely lost, and there is something to be said for “intelligent worship” (Phillips) or JB’s “that is worthy of thinking beings”. In any case it is a striking word to use in connection with the offering of the body. The noun may be understood of service in general or of the particular service rendered in the act of worship. Harrison sees “service” as having the advantage that it “covers the entire range of the Christian’s life and activity.” But in the end we are left with the fact that Paul has used two words, both of which are ambiguous. We cannot feel confident that either “spiritual” or “rational” is absent from the adjective or that “worship” or “service” is lacking in the noun. There is a “rich complexity” (Leenhardt) in the expression.
Morris, L. (1988). The Epistle to the Romans (434). Grand Rapids, Mich.; Leicester, England: W.B. Eerdmans; Inter-Varsity Press.

Originally Posted by nleshelman

I am wondering if anyone knows how the translators of the ESV came to translate 'logikan latrian' as spiritual worship instead of reasonable service as the KJV and NKJV do?

It's because they decided to interpret rather than translate in this instance.

It may be the case that they have interpreted here; but it seems to be 'common' to do that. Any further thoughts on the grammatical reasons for it?

Nate, I just looked through Bauer he says this about logikos: "it is to be borne in mind that l. means spiritual not only in the sense of pneumatikos, but also in contrast to 'literal.'" It seems as if logikos can mean either spiritual or reasonable or rational. I think in the New Testament if logikos is used, however translated, it should have reference to the spirit. Latreia has reference to cultic practices, and can either mean service or worship. I think it matters little if translated 'reasonable service' or 'spiritual worship.' I really don't think the NIV or the ESV authors were interpreting here. I think they were offering what they thought was the best translation of logiken latreian. Reasonable service seems to fit well with the idea of renewing your mind, but spiritual worship fits well with the idea of offering your bodies as living sacrifices. What seems to get in the way of translating it 'spiritual worship' for many Christians is that they are letting their idea of the rpw get in the way of accepting 'spiritual worship' as a viable translation.