article43

§37 Names and Faces of the Gospel (Rom. 16:1–27)

At first glance the final chapter of Romans offers little more than a list of names, of interest to Paul and his readers perhaps, but of doubtful consequence for modern readers. Of what significance after all, is a list of unidentified names? Is not a name about which we know nothing really no name at all? Is not our commentary reduced to an exercise in historical trivia at this point? Does not the strangeness of the names remind us how foreign and remote Paul’s world really is from ours, lessening the likelihood of this epistle’s speaking to us today?

The sixteenth chapter has a checkered history in the interpretation of the epistle. According to the testimony of Origen, already in the second century Marcion eliminated it (and chapter 15) from his edition of Romans (Commentary on Romans, 7.453; cited in Metzger, TCGNT, p. 533). Luther also struck it from his commentary on the premise that Paul would scarcely have concluded such a powerful epistle with a roster of names (Lectures on Romans, p. 419). Nearly two centuries ago David Schulz began in earnest the historical-critical assault on the final chapter, postulating that Romans 16 is actually a cover letter attached to a second copy of Romans originally ending at 15:33 which Paul sent also to Ephesus, and which introduces Phoebe (16:1–2) as the letter carrier. According to this theory, Romans circulated in at least two versions—a shorter original (chs. 1–15) which was destined for Rome, and a longer copy (chs. 1–15, plus 16) which was destined for Ephesus. During the course of time, the theory continues, the two copies (and their copies) became confused, thus accounting for the fragmentary ending of the epistle, and especially the doxology (16:25–27). This accounts for the fact that among various manuscripts the doxology occurs at the close of chapters 14 or 16 (or both 14 and 16), in one manuscript at the end of chapter 15, and in others not at all. Among recent interpreters T. W. Manson has given classic proportions to the Ephesian theory.

Whatever the merits of the theory, it appears destined to play only a minor part in the exegetical history of Romans. The evidence which can be orchestrated against it (see Additional Notes) makes it virtually certain that chapter 16 belonged to the autograph hand of the epistle (though there is more doubt about the doxology). Throughout our commentary we have considered the likelihood that the problems which resulted from the return of Jewish Christians to Gentile Christian churches in Rome after the lapse of the edict of Claudius played a discernible role in both the themes and the method of the epistle. If Romans were originally intended for another destination, or, at the very least, equally applicable to another destination (both of which the Ephesian theory suggests), then its historical context is essentially lost—not to mention the questions which such a theory would raise about the pastoral integrity of Paul. But if, as we have argued, the epistle was written by Paul in order to commend his gospel and himself to Rome and to enlist Roman support in his proposed Spanish mission, then the greetings in chapter 16 are quite in harmony with the missionary purpose set forth in 15:14–33. The persons greeted are colleagues (and acquaintances of colleagues) from the eastern mission field, whom the apostle mentions in order to marshall support in Rome for his proposed trip to Spain. What could be more natural given his pastoral and missionary interests? One reason why Paul was the successful missionary he was is that he did not act in accordance with some of the theories which scholars have since attributed to him.

16:1–2 / At the head of the list of greetings stands a woman, Phoebe. Paul calls her our sister, which means she was a Christian, and judging from her name, she must have been a Gentile Christian, since Jewish parents would scarcely have named a daughter after the Titaness of Greek mythology (the daughter of Heaven and Earth, Hesiod, Theogony, 136). She is a servant of the church (v. 1) at Cenchrea, a port town adjacent to Corinth to the southeast. The Greek word for servant is diakonos, more commonly rendered “deacon.” Whether by “deacon(ess)” he means a church official or a general helper is disputed, though the former is more likely. Paul’s word choice in Greek suggests a formal office (ousan diakonon), whereas general help would more naturally have been expressed either by the verb diakonein (“to serve”), or by the abstract noun diakonia (“service”). We know that the offices of bishop and deacon were established at the time (or not much later), and there is reasonable evidence that women were entitled at least to the latter office.

Phoebe was evidently a person of means (or influence, or both), because the Greek term translated a great help (v. 2; Gk. prostatis) means a “protectress or patroness.” She is mentioned first, however, not because she was a benefactor, but because she was in all likelihood the bearer of the epistle from Corinth to Rome. The term for commend (v. 1), synistēmi, was roughly the Greek equivalent to a letter of recommendation today. In antiquity inns and hotels were not only sparse but of dubious reputation, and persons who travelled to foreign parts needed such recommendations as protection against all sorts of liabilities, especially if they were unknown women. Paul asks the church to receive her, as was the custom throughout early Christianity (e.g., 15:7; Matt. 25:31–46), in a way worthy of the saints.

16:3–4 / Phoebe’s name is followed by the names of two fellow workers (v. 3) who had risked their lives for Paul (v. 4), and who had a remarkable missionary record of their own. Having been expelled from Rome by Claudius in A.D. 49 (Acts 18:2), Prisc(ill)a and Aquila worked with Paul in Corinth and Ephesus, but at the time of writing they were back in Rome. Given Paul’s adventurous missionary career, there were several places where they could have risked their lives for him, but no place has better claim than at the riot at Ephesus (Acts 19:23–40; but see also 2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23). This Jewish married couple played a critical role in Paul’s missionary enterprise and receives unqualified praise from him. Like Phoebe, they appear to have been people of means. More importantly, they were dedicated to community, for five of the six references to them in the NT include a note of either companionship with or influence on fellow believers. In Ephesus (1 Cor. 16:19) and Rome (v. 5) they had founded house churches. In their conduct they exemplified the nature of the body of Christ, and it is perhaps for this reason that they were so endeared to Paul. In four of the six references to them Prisc(ill)a is mentioned before Aquila, which suggests that she impressed her contemporaries as the more dominant partner.

Two of the three names which head the list, then, are of women, one of whom, probably a deaconess, is entrusted with carrying the epistle to Rome, the other being a church developer and mentor to missionaries (Acts 18:24–28). No other persons listed receive credits equal to those of Phoebe and Prisc(ill)a. Nor is this the sum of the matter. Four of the first seven names in the list belong to women, one of whom lays good claim to being an apostle. Of the 29 names in the total list, fully one-third are women’s. Suffice it to say that Paul is not the despiser of women, nor the advocate of a male-dominated ministry, that he is often portrayed as being.

16:5–16 / There now follows a rapid-fire review of names, about which much spadework has produced, for the most part, only modest gains. But what commentators have lacked in hard evidence they have made up for in a gold mine of guesswork, some of it quite intriguing.

Epenetus (v. 5) is a name found frequently in inscriptions, but otherwise unknown in biblical Greek. Epenetus, a male Gentile, was distinguished as the first convert in the province of Asia (= modern western Turkey).

Mary (v. 6), a woman, was most probably a Jewess (though a variant spelling of the same name was not uncommon among Gentiles).

Andronicus and Junias (v. 7), both Greek names, were doubtlessly Jewish since Paul calls them my relatives (literally in Greek, “fellow-countrymen”). Depending on the Greek accenting of Iounian (a form of the name which unfortunately obscures its gender), the name could be either male (Junias) or female (Junia). The name is normally presumed male (so NIV), but a recent study reveals over 250 examples of it in Greek literature, not one of which is masculine! This seems to be nearly incontrovertible evidence that the name is feminine (Junia), which would make the pair husband and wife (or perhaps brother and sister). If the name is feminine, then Paul’s referring to Andronicus and Junia as outstanding among the apostles, who were in Christ before I was, is very significant. It would indicate that (1) apostles refers to a group larger than the original Twelve, (2) among whom was to be counted a woman, (3) and probably a wife, (4) who had been an apostle before Paul was! In saying this we are still holding to the high ground of probability. Now to plunge to more speculative depths: that Andronicus and Junia were Christians before Paul, and indeed were outstanding among the apostles, raises the question whether they might have been among the Roman visitors to Jerusalem converted at Pentecost (Acts 2:10), who then returned to evangelize the capital. And to speculate further, if Paul greets those outstanding among the apostles, would this not imply that the most outstanding among them—Peter—is not in Rome (see Schlatter, Gottes Gerechtigkeit, p. 400)? This may be a small piece of evidence in the mosaic that Roman Christianity was not founded by Peter.

Ampliatus (v. 8) and Urbanus (v. 9), both men, were common Roman slave names. Ampliatus is found frequently in inscriptions, one of which dates from the first century in the catacomb of Domitilla in Rome.

Stachys (v. 9) is a common Greek name for a slave.

Apelles (v. 10), also a common Greek name, was known among the imperial household.

Aristobulus (v. 10), a Greek name, was common among the Herodian dynasty. There is a possibility (but only that) that the Aristobulus here mentioned was the grandson of Herod I and brother of Agrippa I, who lived in Rome and was a friend of the Emperor Claudius. That Paul refers to those who belong to the household of Aristobulus implies that Aristobulus either was not a Christian or was deceased.

Herodion (v. 11), a Jewish name, is also probably to be associated with the family of Herod. The mention of a Herodian immediately after verse 10 adds weight to the conjecture that Aristobulus was the famous member of the same family.

Narcissus (v. 11), a Greek name, may also have been either a non-believer or deceased since Paul mentions only his household. F. F. Bruce asks whether this Narcissus was the wealthy freedman of Emperor Tiberius and confidant of Claudius who was later executed at the insistence of Agrippina under Nero’s reign, and whose retainers and slaves would have then passed into the imperial household. Might they have been “those who belong to Caesar’s household” whom Paul greeted in Philippians 4:22 (see Bruce, Apostle of the Heart Set Free, p. 386)? But this too is a finely spun web of conjecture.

Tryphena and Tryphosa (v. 12), both feminine Greek names, were perhaps sisters.

Persis (v. 12), also a feminine Greek name, was common to the slave class.

Rufus (v. 13) was a common slave name. We can guess the color of his hair (or complexion) from his name (Lat, rufus = “red”). There is a better than even chance that this was the son of the man who carried Jesus’ cross, Simon of Cyrene, “the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mark 15:21). The mother of Rufus had greatly served or endeared herself to Paul, for he calls her his mother.

Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas (v. 14) are all either Latin or Greek slave names. Phlegon was the name of a dog in Xenophon; we would hope the name did not represent his owner’s opinion of him. The groups of names in this and the following verse suggest members of two house churches.

Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister, and Olympas (v. 15) are likewise slave names, among which Julia was common in the imperial household.

Paul directs the group to Greet one another with a holy kiss (v. 16). Kissing as a form of social respect was widespread throughout the orient. Rabbinic Judaism permitted it on the occasions of greeting honored guests, after long separations, or good-byes (See Str-B, vol. 1, pp. 995–96). The kiss is already a sign of Christian fellowship in the NT (1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14), deriving perhaps from the celebration of the Lord’s Supper where, more than any other sign, the kiss exemplified the intimacy and forgiveness characteristic of the extreme sacrifice of Christ. Whether the reference to kissing means that Paul expected the epistle to be read at the Lord’s Supper is anyone’s guess, but he can scarcely have wished its reading to be limited to that occasion.

We began the discussion of 16:1–27 by questioning the value of examining a list of names. Of what consequence are they? A summary review leads to three important insights. First, despite the uncertainty about many of them, the names reveal a remarkable diversity in early Christianity. Paul mentions 29 persons, 27 of them by name, a full third of whom are women. There are Jewish, Greek, and Latin names. A few stem from the nobility and ruling classes, but the majority are names of slaves or freedpersons. The Roman churches appear to have been cross-class churches, with membership predominantly from the lower strata of society. This motley list is evidence of a veritable social revolution! Where but in the church could there be found such social and ethnic diversity; and yet, more importantly, where were social and ethnic distinctions of less significance than in the church, where persons counted more than gender or class or ethnicity or nationality or color? The list bears unassuming though eloquent witness to Galatians 3:28, “There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Second, the list testifies to the uniqueness of each member of the community. This is no roster of faceless names (much less numbers), but a naming of persons who were known and valued. Paul calls them dear friend … relatives who have been in prison with me … tested and approved … hard worker … chosen. Each is important not so much for his or her own sake, but in relationship to the gospel. Each epithet witnesses in some way to a labor of obedience to plant and perpetuate the faith which has been passed down to the present day. If the adjectives are anything to judge by, we should conclude that the early church was characterized above all by hard work (Gk. kopian) and affection (Gk. agapētos)—two not insignificant traits for a healthy church in any age. While there is ignorance about the specific contributions of some of them, the church is nevertheless indebted to their witness.

Finally, this list is a reminder that Romans was not conceived as a bloodless theological tract. It was written to persons, and judging from their names, to a very average cross section of persons in first-century Rome. The names of Epenetus, Persis, and Tryphena—whoever they were—remind us that Paul penned Romans with individuals in mind, confident that its contents would be both understandable and meaningful for their lives. It was quite literally “good news” to its first readers, and it is no less so today.

16:17–20 / The tone changes abruptly in verses 17–20. Heretofore Paul has approached the matter of advice-giving with absolute discretion, doubtlessly because he was personally unknown to the churches. The sudden mood change accounts for the quite predictable doubt in some scholars’ minds about the originality of verses 17–20. But the mood change can also be accounted for on other grounds. That Paul was capable of such pendulum swings is no surprise, especially when a pressing danger came to mind that had escaped his attention earlier (e.g., see 1 Cor. 16:22; Gal. 6:11–15; Phil. 3:12–21; 1 Thess. 2:15–16). The fact that Paul has majored on the problems of Jews and Gentiles may have detained him until now from addressing other problems that, though of less magnitude, were not unimportant. The familiarity of the preceding list of names may have induced him to drop his reserve and indulge in the pastoral urgency for which he was known.

This compact admonition sums up not only the foregoing ethical injunctions (chs. 12–15), but the theme of the unity in faith of Jews and Gentiles that runs through the entire epistle. Regarding the polemical thrust of this section, suffice it to say that where critical issues were involved—and the teaching of the faith was a critical issue for Paul—he did not enter the fray unarmed. The use of teaching (v. 17) with reference to the gospel (also 6:17) is evidence that already the Christian faith was regarded as a content of belief as well as a personal experience of trust, and that something approximating a catechetical office (e.g., you have learned) was the means by which it was taught. And, as we have noted before, where truth was at issue, the proposition of that truth was but half the battle; the other half was its opposition to error and falsehood. The Christian community cannot afford to be naive about evil; evil must be named and opposed if it is to be defeated.

Who the troublemakers were we can only guess. Paul describes them as causing divisions and putting obstacles in your way, which suggests Judaizers (Gal. 1:6–9; 3:1ff.; 5:3ff.). If so, he might be warning against the (re)imposing of Jewish legalism, which was doubtlessly a problem with the return of Jews to Rome following the edict of Claudius. But Paul had also had his fill of divisions and obstacles in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:10–17; 3:4–9), and probably from non-Jewish elements. In verse 18 he says that such people serve their own appetites and deceive the minds of naive people … by smooth talk and flattery. Mention of appetites, suggesting unbridled impulses, recalls the whole concept of “flesh” in Paul, more specifically in fact the libertine and permissive factions which wracked the church at Corinth (2 Cor. 10–13). There thus appear to be dangers from the right (legalism) and dangers from the left (libertinism) in verses 17–20. We cannot identify either side further, and is it perhaps unnecessary to do so, for the same two dangers (in various forms) plague the church to the present day. Curiously Paul does not mention expelling the troublemakers from their midst. He must have known (and where would this have been truer than in Rome?) that where the church cannot live apart from error, it, nevertheless, must not succumb to error.

The distinctive Christian response to antagonism and heresy is obedience to the gospel (v. 19; cf. 1:5). The advice of verse 19, I want you to be wise about what is good and innocent about what is evil must have been guided by Matthew 10:16. This may strike the reader (especially the modern reader who is attuned to social injustice) as a rather complacent response. Obedience, however, is not complacency. True, there is no hint of retaliation against opposition here, and it is that which may appear naive to modern readers. But of what use is physical force against spiritual powers? They must be met on their own terms, i.e., by truth, justice, love, and above all, prayer. Hence, Paul appeals to an unmitigated trust in divine sovereignty in such matters. “Do not take revenge, my friends, but leave room for God’s wrath” (12:19). The God of peace will soon crush Satan under your feet (v. 20). Obvious here is the allusion to Genesis 3:15 as well as to the thought which arose during the intertestamental period that the Messiah would endue his followers with power over evil forces (e.g., T. Levi 18.12).

16:21–24 / The brief benediction in verse 20b (which can also be found in some manuscripts as verse 24) would be a fitting conclusion to Romans. But Paul gives the impression of not wanting to draw the epistle to a close. In verse 21 he sends greetings to Rome from several associates. It has been suggested that these associates comprised the delegation carrying the collection for Jerusalem (cf. 15:25ff.), but the fact that Paul calls them syngeneis (“fellow-countrymen”; NIV, my relatives) lessens the likelihood of this. In 9:3 syngeneis refers to fellow Jews, and it is hard to imagine that Paul would have enlisted Jews to carry a Gentile offering to Jerusalem.

First named, and deservedly so, comes Timothy, Paul’s companion on the second and third missionary journeys. No colleague had been a comrade-in-arms over the years as had Timothy, who is mentioned in the salutations of several epistles. Whether the Lucius mentioned here is identical with the Lucius of Acts 13:1 is impossible to say. At any rate, the name is not to be confused with Luke, a one-time traveling companion of Paul and traditional author of the Third Gospel (see Col. 4:14; 2 Tim. 4:11; Philem. 24). The correlation of Jason and Sosipater with their possible counterparts in Acts 17:5 and 20:4, respectively, is also uncertain. More endearing is the note on Tertius, Paul’s amanuensis who transcribed the epistle, who interjects a personal greeting in the first person in verse 22. It was common in rabbinic literature to mention the name of an amanuensis, but one can sense Tertius’ special pride in being the transcriber of such a monumental work. Since Paul is writing from Corinth, the Gaius of verse 23 is probably the same Gaius of 1 Corinthians 1:14 who was baptized by Paul. An inscription to an Erastus, commissioner of public works, which was unearthed in Corinth in 1929, very likely concerns the Erastus of verse 23 (see Introduction, p. 21, note ), although nothing is known of his brother Quartus.

16:25–27 / The benediction with which Paul brings his magnum opus to a close is baroque and powerful. Apart from the full benediction in Ephesians 3:20–21, the other epistles ascribed to Paul end more simply (as in v. 20b). Many scholars have supposed that the present benediction derives from later editors who produced a grand finale befitting of Romans. The occurrence of the benediction in at least three different places in surviving manuscripts of Romans suggests a secondary origin to some scholars. But the fact that the benediction sums up several key themes of the epistle (e.g., mystery [v. 25; cf. 11:25] and “obedience of faith” [v. 26, cf. 1:5]) may tip the scales in favor of its originality.

Whatever its pedigree, the benediction is a majestic conclusion to Romans. Anyone who thinks that the early Christians breathed only the rarefied air of Shaker-like simplicity has yet to come to terms with the theological sophistication of Romans. Nor has such an individual breathed the liturgical incense of this doxology. It gives eloquent testimony to the rich and formulaic blood which circulated in the veins of earliest Christianity. Structurally it reviews the history of salvation by scanning the major summits of the epistle. From all eternity God, in his eternal purpose, ordained to save the nations in Jesus Christ. The mystery which had been hidden for interminable ages has now been revealed through Jesus Christ, as foretold by the Law and the Prophets, so that all nations might believe and obey him.

That all nations might believe and obey him. That is the will of God and the abiding commission of the church. It was the seed which gave birth to this epistle nearly two millennia ago as a visionary apostle paced to and fro in his quarters on the Peloponnesus and recited the immortal words of Romans to a quite overwhelmed amanuensis. That all nations might believe and obey is the goal to which the Holy Spirit bears witness in every age, and it is the prayer which the church must forever hold in its heart and pursue in its life. To the only wise God be glory forever through Jesus Christ! Amen.