Mathew Thesis 9.7.10

Durham E-Theses
Women in the Greetings of Rom 16:1-16: A Study of

Mutuality and Womens Ministry in the Letter to the
Romans
MATHEW, SUSAN
How to cite:
MATHEW, SUSAN (2010) Women in the Greetings of Rom 16:1-16: A Study of Mutuality and Womens
Ministry in the Letter to the Romans , Durham theses, Durham University. Available at Durham E-Theses
Online: http://etheses.dur.ac.uk/369/
Use policy
The full-text may be used and/or reproduced, and given to third parties in any format or medium, without prior permission or
charge, for personal research or study, educational, or not-for-prot purposes provided that:
a full bibliographic reference is made to the original source
a link is made to the metadata record in Durham E-Theses
the full-text is not changed in any way
The full-text must not be sold in any format or medium without the formal permission of the copyright holders.
Please consult the full Durham E-Theses policy for further details.
Academic Support Oce, Durham University, University Oce, Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HP
e-mail: [email protected] Tel: +44 0191 334 6107
http://etheses.dur.ac.uk

Women in the Greetings of Rom 16:1-16: A Study of Mutuality and
Women's Ministry in the Letter to the Romans

By Susan Mathew

Submitted in Fulfilment of the Requirements
for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy

Durham University
Department of Theology and Religion

2010

i

Acknowledgements
All glory and honour be to the Lord. I am grateful to God for His grace, mercy, faithfulness
and wisdom that helped me to finish this research. Also, I remember the support, help and
encouragement I have received from many people during the last few years.
My Supervisor, Prof. John M.G. Barclay and his family, has been a source of encouragement
even before I come to the UK for research. His critical intelligence, valid suggestions and insightful
comments, constant encouragement and patience in this path are greatly acknowledged here and for
which I am particularly grateful. Moreover, I thank him for his whole hearted support for the project
that has been launched along with my research to help the children affected with cerebral palsy in
India. My special thanks to Dr. Stephen Barton, who has been my second supervisor for his timely
help and encouragement. I express my gratitude to my examiners, Dr. Paul Ellingworth (Aberdeen
University) and Dr. W. R. Telford (Durham University) for their valuable help and comments.
I would like to express my deep appreciation and sincere thanks to all those who have helped me
financially at the various stages of development of this work. My special thanks are due to: Dr Robert
Song for kindly arranging PGR Scholarship from Durham University in the first year; the scholarship
committee in the Department of Theology and Religion for offering me financial support; Langham
Partnership International for providing scholarship from the second year till the end of the research. I
consider it as a privilege of being a part of Langham; the prayers, encouragement, fellowship, and
continuous support from the scholars (who represent different nations) as well as from the staff helped
me to finish successfully. My special thanks are due to the Scholars Directors- Dr. Howard Peskett,
and Dr. Ian Shaw. I am grateful to the staff at Ustinov College, especially Theresa McKinven, the
Vice-Principal and Ms. Brenda Ryder, Student Support Officer for their timely support during these
years. I am grateful to the British Council for choosing me as the North-east International Student of
the year 2010 (Shine award).
The practical assistance from the staff of the Department of Theology and Religion was
incalculable. To the members of Tyndale House, Cambridge, I want to thank you for opening to me a
space in your library, where I prepared the final draft of this work. I express my thanks to my friend,
Dr. Ben Blackwell for proof-reading my thesis before the first submission and his timely help in
various stages. To Dr. Mark and Ruth Bonnington and the support from Kings Church, Durham; the
Emmanuel Church, Durham; the trustees of CANDLE (Caring and Addressing the Needs of
Differently-abled Lives through Education) FOR INDIA; NHS, Childrens Community Centre,
Chester le Street and St. Hilds School, Durham for supporting my youngest son Jyothish, who is
affected with cerebral palsy, thank you. My thanks are due to the families: Stuart and Rachel for being
a good family friend; Katie & Christophe for giving their car as a gift; friends from India especially
Prince and Lucy, members of Sunderland Pentecostal Fellowship for their love, prayer and fellowship;
New Castle Fellowship, K.T. Koshy & family; our friends from Kerala all over the UK who extended
fellowship and hospitality at different occasions; Faith Theological Seminary for the support, and the
church in Kerala for upholding me and my family in prayers.
I am grateful to my parents for their love, prayer and support, especially my Dad for being a model in
Christian life and ministry, and to my sisters and their families and my brother and my in-laws for
their prayer and support. To Mathew, who is my companion in life and ministry and our children,
Josh, Abhishek, Ashish and Jyothish for being with me patiently in every step of this process. I
remember my Mom, who went to be with the Lord, when I was twelve years old, whose love, advise
and discipline still guides the paths of my life. To my Mom and Dad, I dedicate this work.

ii

Declaration
No part of this thesis has been submitted for a degree in this or any other University.
The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. No quotation from it should be
published in any format, including electronic and the Internet, without the authors
prior written consent. All information derived from this thesis must be acknowledged
appropriately.

iii

Abstract
The purpose of this study is to investigate the leadership roles of women within
the model of mutuality in Pauline churches as specified in Romans 16:1-16. The
three major issues focussed in this study are the leadership roles of women in the
Pauline churches (Romans 16:1-16), the nature of mutuality reflected in the greetings
to men and women, and the way in which the greetings to men and women in Rom
16 relate to the ethos of mutualism in Rom 12-15.
Starting from the premise that Romans 16 is an integral part of the letter, the
study begins with an overview of previous research in the areas of major focus
(Chapter 1). It is followed by the analysis of the form of greetings in the Pauline
letters against the backdrop of the Hellenistic use of greetings to understand the
significance of the specific form of the greetings in Rom 16:1-16 and its purpose of
encouraging mutual relationship (Chapter 2). The analysis of the leadership of
women in the Greco-Roman world shows that womens leadership roles in the
Pauline churches were not countercultural; rather they were part of the culture of the
Greco-Roman world, where some women of wealth or higher social status exerted
some independence (Chapter 3). The women named (Rom 16:1-16) and greeted with
descriptive phrases perhaps draw our attention to Pauls acknowledgment of some
women, who worked as his associates, and point to relationships of mutuality in the
greetings (Chapter 4). The study of Romans 12-13 helps to clarify the model of
mutuality in the body metaphor and the repeated term a0llh/louv, signifying that
Christian experience is not only an individual experience but also has social and
ethical aspects (Chapter 5). The contextual application of mutuality in the
community as mutual welcoming and mutual up-building (Rom 14-15) is the focus
of Chapter 6. The final attempt is to draw together the peculiarities of the Pauline
ethos of mutuality which encourages the leadership roles of women in the greetings
(Chapter 7).
Mutuality of relationships in Romans transcends gender discrimination as Paul
accepts and appreciates men and women for their toil with regard to the church and
to himself. The women named and greeted with specific roles (Rom 16) are Phoebe,
Prisca, Junia, Persis, Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Rufus mother, Nereus sister
and Julia. The leadership of women in the church is placed within the structures of
mutuality in Romans. Mutuality is the model of relationship Paul wants to urge on
Roman Christians and the ethical obligations are guided by the dynamic relationships
of love mutualism, which are evident in Romans 12-15. Love mutualism works as
mutual service to the other that works within the hierarchies and is dynamic.

iv

Table of Contents
Acknowledgements....................................................................................................i
Declaration..............................................................................................................ii
Abstract...................................................................................................................iii
Table of Contents............ .......................................................................................iv
Abbreviations.........................................................................................................vii

Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1. Purpose of Study ..............................................................................................1
1.2. The Issues Raised..............................................................................................1
1.3. Romans 16 as an Integral Part of the Letter to the Romans............................. 3
1.3.1. Various Forms of the Letter................................................................. 4
1.3.2. The Ephesian Hypothesis.....................................................................9
1.3.3. Arguments for Romans 16 as an Integral Part of the Romans
Letter.................................................................................................13
1.4. The Women Named in Rom16.......................................................................20
1.4.1. Phoebe................................................................................................20
1.4.2. Prisca...................................................................................................23
1.4.3. Junia....................................................................................................25
1.4.4. Other Women Members of the Greeting list......................................27
1.5. Womens leadership in Pauline Churches...................................................... 28
1.6. Greetings as a Letter Form .............................................................................34
1.7. Mutualism in Pauls Communal Ethos ..........................................................37
1.7.1. General Research..................................................................................37
1.7.2. Particular Research on Rom 12-15 in Relation to Community
Building...............................................................................................38
1.8. The Contribution and the Plan of Thesis.........................................................41

Chapter 2: The Form of Greetings in the Romans Letter Closing
2.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................44
2.2. Letter Closing in the Hellenistic Letters........................................................ 45
2.2.1. Greetings............................................................................................48
2.3. Letter closing in Semitic Letters.................................................................... 54
2.4. Letter Closing in Pauline Letters....................................................................55
2.4.1. Form of Greetings in Pauline Letters......................................... .......58
2.5. The Romans Letter Closing........................................................................... 63
2.6. Greetings in the Romans Letter Closing.........................................................67
2.6.1. First Greeting List...............................................................................67
2.6.2. Greeting with a Holy Kiss..................................................................74
2.7. Conclusion......................................................................................................78

Chapter 3: Women in the Roman Empire
3.1. Introduction.....................................................................................................80
3.2. Women in Courts............................................................................................81
3.3. Women in Politics ..........................................................................................83
3.4. Women Magistrates and Patronage.................................................................83
3.5. Priesthood (Greco-Roman).............................................................................88
3.6. Jewish Synagogues..........................................................................................90
3.6.1. a0rxisuna/gwgov (Head of the Synagogues)..................................91
3.6.2. a0rxh/gissa (Leader).........................................................................96
v

3.6.3. Presbute/ra (Elder)......................................................................... 98
3.6.4. mh/thr sunagwgh~v (Mother of the Synagogue)............................ 100
3.6.5. i9ereia/i9e/risa (Priestess) ................................................................102
3.7. Conclusion.......... ..........................................................................................105

Chapter 4: Women in Romans 16
4.1. Introduction...................................................................................................107
4.2. The Role of Phoebe.......................................................................................107
4.2.1.Dia/konov......................................................................... 109
4.2.2. Prosta/tiv.......................................................................120
4.2.3. Expected Role: Patronage in Spanish Mission?...............................130
4.2.4. Relation of Reciprocity.....................................................................138
4.3. The Role of Prisca.........................................................................................142
4.3.1. Social Status......................................................................................144
4.3.2. Contribution to the Pauline Mission.................................................146
4.3.3. Mutuality...........................................................................................151
4.3.4. Rhetorical Analysis...........................................................................155
4.4. The Role of Junia..........................................................................................157
4.4.1. Junia or Junias? The Name-Gender Debate......................................158
4.4.2. Joanna-Junia: Bauckhams Arguments............................................162
4.4.3. Relationship to the Apostolic Band ................................................164
4.4.4. Other Descriptions...........................................................................170
4.4.5. Significance to the Roman Church: Pauline Motivation..................173
4.5. Hardworking Members.................................................................................175
4.5.1. Mary.................................................................................................175
4.5.2. Persis............................................................................................... 177
4.5.3. Tryphoena and Tryphosa.................................................................178
4.6. Rufus Mother............................................................................................. 178
4.7. Nereus Sister................................................................................................179
4.8. Julia...............................................................................................................179
4.9. Conclusion.....................................................................................................180

Chapter 5: The Body Metaphor and a0llh/louv: A Paradigm of Mutuality in
Romans 12, 13
5.1. Introduction.................................................................................................. 182
5.2. The Body Metaphor in the Pauline Epistles..................................................183
5.2.1. Body Metaphor as a Political Metaphor in Antiquity..................... 183
5.2.2. 1 Cor 12: Exegetical Analysis........................................................ 190
5.2.3. Romans 12: Exegetical Analysis.................................................... 201
5.3. Love Enhancing Mutuality in Romans (Rom 12:9-13; 13:8-10).. ...............207
5.3.1. Genuine Love (2:9)..........................................................................208
5.3.2. Brotherly Affection (filadelfi/a 12:10a)......................................210
5.3.3. Honouring One Another (th~| timh|~ a0llh/louv prohgou/menoi
12:10b)............................................................................................212
5.3.4. Generosity and Hospitality (12:13).................................................214
5.3.5. Identifying Love (12:15)..................................................................215
5.3.6. Harmonious Living (12:16).............................................................216
5.3.7. Obligatory Love (13:8, 9, 10) ........................................................ 218
5.4. The Pauline Emphases .................................................................................220
5.5. Conclusion ...................................................................................................222
vi

Chapter 6: Receiving One Another: A Paradigm of Mutuality in Romans 14-15
6.1. Introduction ................................................................................................. 224
6.2. The Social Context: Weak/Strong Dichotomy .............................................225
6.2.1. Issues in Group Conflicts..................................................................225
6.2.2. The Groups Identified.......................................................................228
6.2.3. General or Specific Instruction? ......................................................231
6.3. Mutual Welcome: Exegetical Analysis of Pauls Exhortations....................235
6.3.1. Welcome (proslamba/nw) ............................................................235
6.4. Judging as Hindrance to Welcoming............................................................241
6.4.1. Who are you who is judging? (14:4) .........................................242
6.4.2. Who are you to judge your brother? (14:10) .................................244
6.4.3. Let us not Judge One Another (14:13) ..........................................245
6.5. Cost and Effect of Welcoming .....................................................................247
6.5.1. Obligation: Bearing the Scruples: (15:1a) .......................................247
6.5.2. Serving the Interests of the Other (15: 2, 3).....................................248
6.5.3. Love as Core Attitude (14:15)..........................................................250
6.5.4. Christian Unity .................................................................................252
6.5.5. Christian Community Ideals ............................................................252
6.5.6. Up-Building Metaphor (oi0kodomh/ 14:19; 15:2)...............................254
6.5.7. Sustaining Mutual Identity...............................................................256
6.6. The Pauline Ethos of Mutuality....................................................................257
6.6.1. a0llh/louv: Two Way Relationship................................................. 258
6.6.2. Dynamic Relationship .....................................................................259
6.7. Conclusion.....................................................................................................261

Chapter 7 Conclusion: Towards a Theology of Love Mutualism
7.1. A Retrospect..................................................................................................263
7.2. The Impact of a0spa/sasqe...........................................................................265
7.3. The Women in Leadership within the Structures of Mutualism ..................266
7.4. 1 Cor 11:2-16: Restriction or Mutuality in Gender Roles?...........................268
7.5. Pauline Love Mutualism: A Challenge to Communitarian Ethic...............272

Bibliography.........................................................................................................276

vii

Abbreviations

Abbreviations of ancient literature follow The SBL Handbook of Style (2004)
wherever possible. In addition, the following abbreviations are used:

AB Anchor Bible
ABD Anchor Bible Dictionary
AJP American Journal of Philology
AGJU Arbeiten zur Geschichte des antiken Judentums und des
Urchristentums
BDAG Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich, and F. W. Danker.
Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early
Christian Literature. 3
rd

ed. Chicago, 2000.
BCE Before the Common Era
BJS Brown Judaic Studies
BRev Bible Review
BT The Bible Translator
BWANT Beitrge zur Wissenschaft vom Alten (und Neuen) Testament
CBQ Catholic Biblical Quarterly
CD Damascus Document
CE Common Era
CFTL Clarks Foreign Theological Library
CRINT Compendia rerum iudaicarum ad Novum Testamentum
DPL Dictionary of Paul and His Letters
EDNT Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by H.
Balz, G. Schneider. ET. Grand Rapids, 1990-1993.
EKKNT Evangelisch-katholischer Kommentar zum Neuen Testament
EBib tudes Bibliques
ETR tudes thologiques et religieuses
EvQ Evangelical Quarterly
ExpTim Expository Times
GR Greece and Rome
HTR Harvard Theological Review
HTS Harvard Theological Studies
ICC International Critical Commentary
IJT Indian Journal of Theology
JAAR Journal of the American Academy of Religion
JAC Jahrbuch fr Antike und Christentum
JB Jerome Bible
JBL Journal of Biblical Literature
JETS Journal of Evangelical Theological Society
JJS Journal of Jewish Studies
JSJ Journal of the Study of the Judaism in the Persian, Hellenistic,
and Roman Periods
JRS Journal of Roman Studies
JSOT Journal for the Study of the Old Testament
JSNT Journal of the Study of the New Testament

JSNTSup Journal of the Study of the New Testament: Supplement Series
viii

JTS Journal of Theological Studies
KEK Kritisch-exegetischer Kommentar ber das Neue Testament
KJV King James Version
LSJ Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon
9
th
ed. with revised supplement. Oxford, 1996.
LTJ Lutheran Theological Journal
LXX Septuagint
MM Moulton, J. H., and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek
Testament. London, 1930. Reprint, Peabody, Mass., 1997.
MSS Manuscripts
NCBC New Critical Bible Commentary
New Docs New Documents Illustrating Early Christianity: A Review of
the Greek Inscriptions and Papyri. Edited by G.H. R. Horsley
and S. Llewelyn . North Ryde, NS.W., 1981-
NovT Novum Testamentum
NovTSup Novum Testamentum Supplements
NTAbh Neutestamentliche Abhandlungen
NTD Das Neue Testament Deutsch
NTS New Testament Studies
PCPSSV Proceedings of the Cambridge Philological Society,
Supplement Volume
QD Quaestiones disputatae
RBen Revue bndictine
REB Revised English Bible
ResQ Restoration Quarterly
SBL Society of Biblical Literature
SBLDS Society of Biblical Literature Dissertation series
SBT Studies in Biblical Theology
SE Studia Evangelica
SNTSMS Society for New Testament Studies Monograph Series
SNTS Society for New Testament Studies
SNTW Studies of the New Testament and Its World
SVF Stoicorum Veterum Fragmenta
TDNT Theological Dictionary of the New Testament. Edited by G.
Kittel and G.Friedrich.Translated by G. W. Bromiley. 10 vols.
Grand Rapids, 1964-1976.
TGI Theologie und Glaube
THKNT Theologischer Handkommentar zum Neuen Testament
TJ Trinity Journal
TynBul Tyndale Bulletin
VC Vigiliae Christianae
WBC Word Biblical Commentary
WW Word and World
WMANT Wissenschaftliche Monographien zum Alten und Neuen
Testament
ZNW Zeitschrift fr die neutestamentlische Wissenschaft und die
Kunde der lteren Kirche

Papyri

ix

P.Amh. The Amherst Papyri, Being an Account of the Greek Papyri in
the Collection of the Right Hon. Lord Amherst of Hackney,
F.S.A. at Didlington Hall, Norfolk, ed. B.P. Grenfell and A.S.
Hunt. London.
BGU Aegyptische Urkunden aus den Kniglichen
(later Staatlichen) Museen zu Berlin, Griechische Urkunden.
Berlin.
P. Cair. Zen Zenon Papyri, Catalogue gnral des antiquits gyptiennes
du Muse du Caire, ed. C.C. Edgar, Cairo.
P.Fay. Fayum Towns and their Papyri, ed. B.P. Grenfell, A.S. Hunt
and D.G. Hogarth. London 1900.
P.Giss. Griechische Papyri im Museum des oberhessische
Geschichtsvereins zu Giessen, ed. O. Eger, E. Kornemann,
and P.M. Meyer. Leipzig-Berlin 19101912.
P. Giess. Griechischte Papyri im Museum des oberhessischen
Geschichtsveriens zu Giessen. O. Eger, et.al., eds.3 vols.
Leipzig/Berlin, 1910-1922.
PGM Papyri graecae magicae, ed. K. Preisendanz. 2 vols. Leipzig,
1928-31.
P.Hamb. Griechische Papyrusurkunden der Hamburger Staats- und
Universittsbibliothek.
P.Iand. Papyri Iandanae, ed. C. Kalbfleisch et al. Leipzig.
P.Mert. A Descriptive Catalogue of the Greek Papyri in the Collection
of Wilfred Merton.
P.Oxy. The Oxyrhynchus Papyri. Published by the Egypt Exploration
Society in Graeco-Roman Memoirs. London.
P.Oslo Papyri Osloenses. Oslo.
P.Princ. Papyri in the Princeton University Collections
PSI Papiri greci e latini
P.Ryl. Catalogue of the Greek and Latin Papyri in the John Rylands
Library, Manchester.
P.Tebt. The Tebtunis Papyri. London.

Inscriptions
CII, CIJ Corpus Inscriptionum Iudicarum , ed. J.-B. Frey. 2 vols.
Pontificio Istituto Di Archeologia Cristiana,1936 -52.
CIL Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum
CPJ Corpus Papyrorum Judaicarum, 3 vols.
EG Epigrafia greca, ed. M. Guarducci. 4 vols. Rome, 1967-78.
IG Inscriptiones Graecae, Berlin.
IGR, IGRR Incriptiones Graecae ad res Romanas pertinentes, ed. R.
Cagnat et.al. 3 vols. Paris, 1906-27. Reprint, Chicago, 1975.
IKilikiaBM 1 Journeys in Rough Cilicia, 1962-63, ed. G. E. Bean and T. B.
Mitford. DenkscheWien 85. Vienna, 1965.
MAMA Monumenta Asiae Minoris Antiqua. 10 vols. Manchester, then
London 1928-93.
SEG Supplementum Epigraphicum Graecum 1-11. Ed. J. J. E
Hondius et..al. 1923- . 12-25. Ed. A. G. Woodhead et al.
Leiden, -1971.
I Eph. Die Inschriften von Ephesos 8 Vols. (Bonn 1979-84)
x

Josephus
Ant. Antiquitates Judaicae (Jewish Antiquities)
Ag.Ap. The Life Against Apion
J.W. Jewish War

Philo
Leg.Alleg. Legum Allegoriae
In Flacc In Flaccum
De Somn De Somniis
Leg. Ad. Gaius Legatio ad Gaium

Mishnah
m. Git Gittin
m.Sota Sota
m.Yebam Yebamot
m. Yoma Yoma

Babylonian Talmud
b.Pesah Talmud Pesahim
b. Qidd Qiddushin

Tosefta
t. Meg Megillah
t. Zeb Zebahim

Jerusalem Talmud
y. Ber Berakhot
1 Clem 1 Clement
Herm.Man Shepherd of Hermas, Mandate

T Sim Testament of Simon
T. Zeb Testament of Zebulun
Pittacus Epig. Epigramma
Periander Ep. Epistulae
Theognis Eleg. Elegiae
Cleobulus Epig. Epigrammata
Thales Epig.ded. Epigramma dedicatrium

Unless otherwise noted, the translations of the ancient texts in this thesis follow,
where available, the renderings of LCL. The translations of New Testaments texts
are my own unless otherwise stated.

1

Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1. Purpose of Study
Despite the apparent restrictions on women in the worship and ministry of the
church elsewhere (1 Cor 14:34-35; cf. 1 Tim 2:11-12), the Pauline greetings in Rom
16:1-16 affirm the mutuality of men and women in Christian ministry.
1
Rom 16:1-16
contains a list of persons who were engaged in the ministry of the church very
actively. Paul greets them and acknowledges their ministry. No less than ten women
are mentioned, and Paul describes their ministry in the same way as he acknowledges
men.
What is the significance of these greetings to men and women for our
understanding of womens roles and leadership in Christian ministry? How do we
account for Pauls positive approach to the role of womens ministry in the church?
What can we say about the women here mentioned and their leadership roles? What
models of mutuality are implied in this passage and how do they relate to the notion
of mutual interdependence explained elsewhere in Romans and in Pauls other
letters?
1.2. The Issues Raised
The form of greetings in Romans 16 is different from other letters, and the
second person plural aorist imperative a0spa/sasqe is used sixteen times. Paul
instructs the letter recipients to greet individuals and groups, which is rarely found
elsewhere other than Romans. The greetings in the second person are significant due
to the fact that they strengthen relationships and form closer bonds between people.

1
I start with a simple definition of mutuality as relationships of reciprocal care. By the end of this
thesis we will have deduced a richer and deeper definition on the basis of Pauls exposition of mutual
relations in Rom 12-16.
2

The greetings are directed to the members of the church, and all members of the
Roman church are participating in greeting one another. Romans 16:16 can be seen
as the summation of greeting: greet one another with a holy kiss (a0spa/sasqe
a0llh/louv e0n filh/mati a9gi/w|), which includes the whole church as if nobody
should be missed out.
It is also significant that the greetings are attached to women in ministry
acknowledging their toil and hard work, with descriptive phrases in relation to
Christ, Paul and the church. Most of the women appear in a prominent position in the
list, which shows their active participation in ministry and the preference Paul has
given for them as his associates. The descriptive phrases in the greeting list in
Romans are unique, since a large number of descriptive phrases are used when
compared to other Pauline letters. The descriptive phrases in fact give strong
commendation. Moreover, by way of acknowledging Pauls relations with some
persons in the Roman community, he is building up strong relations within the
community itself, i.e., between one another.
The greetings in Romans 16 are significant taking into account their connection
to the whole focus of the letter. It seems that the aim of the letter is to create unity
and love among the Roman Christians and not just a political move to assure the
place of Paul in the Roman church nor to make himself acceptable.
2
The verbal
echoes and thematic links in Romans show how Paul is tactically conveying the need
of togetherness in the community.
The three major issues of focus in this research are the leadership roles of
women in the Pauline churches as specified in Romans 16, the disposition of the
mutuality reflected in the greetings to men and women, and the way in which the

2
For more discussion of Pauls reasons for writing Romans, see A. J. M. Wedderburn, The Reasons
for Romans, J. Riches (ed.) (SNTW; T& T Clark: Edinburgh, 1988), 97f.
3

greetings to men and women in Rom 16 relate to the ethos of mutualism in Rom 12-
15. We may break these major issues down into the following questions:
1. What are the special characteristics of the greetings in Rom 16?
2. What can we know about these named women and their leadership roles?
3. By what criteria are their ministries acknowledged by Paul?
4. What are the peculiarities of the form of greetings and the descriptive phrases
in Romans 16:1-16?
5. How does the relational language modify the greetings?
6. What models of mutuality are implied in this passage with its exhortations to
mutual greeting?
7. How do these greetings relate to the notion of mutuality and love in Rom 12-
13 and mutual recognition in Romans 14-15?
These questions will be answered by a detailed analysis of the function of the
greetings in Rom 16:1-16 and by analysis of the greetings as a continuation of the
exhortations of Paul to have positive mutual relations (chapters 12-15). However,
before we explore further the content of Romans 16, we need to examine an
important preliminary question: Is this chapter integral to the whole of the letter to
the Romans?
1.3. Romans 16: A Part of the Letter of Romans?
Although there is a consensus among scholars about the Pauline authorship of
the whole letter of Romans, scholars are divided in their opinion about the integrity
and destination of Romans 16. It has been widely discussed whether Romans 16 is a
separate letter or a letter written by Paul to the Ephesians rather than to the Romans.
3

3
Scholars like J. B. Lightfoot, F. J. A. Hort, Eduard Riggenbach, Donatien de Bruyne and Peter
Corssen of the late 19
th
and early 20
th
centuries studied the fundamental issues of the textual tradition
of Romans. Their studies are important to understand the textual traditions although their conclusions
4

The variations in the manuscript evidence, the silence of many of the fathers about
chapters 15 and 16, the different positions of the doxology, the people addressed in
the long greeting list etc. have long been the focus of discussion in the study of
Romans. Therefore a careful analysis of the textual evidence is essential to the study
of Romans 16.
I propose that Romans 16 is an integral part of the Pauline letter to Romans and
that its destination is Rome rather than Ephesus. In order to demonstrate this, first the
different letter forms of Romans will be analysed on the basis of textual evidence.
Secondly, the arguments for an Ephesian destination will be explored and finally the
evidence for Rom 16 as an original part of the Romans letter will be argued.
1.3.1. Various Forms of the Letter
The textual history of Romans shows that there are three basic forms of
Romans. They are: a fourteen chapter form, a fifteen chapter form and a sixteen
chapter form.
1.3.1.1. The Fourteen Chapter Form
a) The Fourteen Chapter Form: It is possible to suggest from different types of
evidence that the letter of Romans existed in a form of only fourteen chapters. The
fourteen chapter form is attested by two different capitula systems. Codex Amiatinus
(vg
A
) of the eighth century is the oldest MS preserving the first system, in which we
find the text of Romans divided into fifty-one parts, with a brief summary.
4

are open to debate. See J. B. Lightfoot (ed.), Biblical Essays (New York: Macmillan, 1904), 285-374;
F. J. A. Hort, On the End of the Epistles to the Romans Journal of Philology 3 (1871) 51-80; E.
Riggenbach, Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie Rm. 16, 25-27 im Zusammenhang mit den brigen,
den Schluss des Rmerbriefs betreffenden, textkritischen Fragen Neue Jahrbchen fr deutsche
Theologie 1 (1892), 526-605; D. de Bruyne, Les deux derniers chapitres de la lettre aux Romains
RBen 25 (1908) 423-430; P. Corssen, Zur berlieferungsgeschichte des Rmerbriefes ZNW 10
(1909), 1-45. See also H. Gamble, The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual
and Literary Criticism (Studies and Documents 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1977), 15.
4
Part of the oldest documentary evidence for the fourteen-chapter text is given by the capitula or
breves found in many Vulgate MSS. Gamble, Textual History, 16. Most of the details for the various
5

Capitulum L cites specially Rom 14:15, 17: Concerning the danger of grieving
a brother by ones food, and the kingdom of God is not food and drink, but
righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit and capitulum LI refers to the
doxology, 16:25-27: Concerning the mystery of the Lord kept in silence before
passion, his truth having been revealed after the passion. Capitulum L refers to the
themes of Romans 14:23 and no capitula can be seen for the last two chapters 15 and
16. Thus, the form of the text is 1:1-14:23 + 16:25-27.
Codex Amiatinus is not a separate witness, but it can be found in other
Vulgate MSS. Gamble writes, A portion of the Amiatine system is found appended
to another capitula system in Codex Fuldensis (vg
F
), also of the sixth century, the
only witness to the second system.
5

Another witness to the fourteen chapters of Romans is Concordia epistularum
Pauli. This is a concordance to the Pauline letters found in partial form in a number
of Vulgate MSS
6
and applies to the Roman text extending only to 14:23, with the
doxology following.
The text with fourteen chapters can also be seen in Marcionite prologues to the
Pauline letters, particularly that of the Romans. Moreover, the patristic testimony is
significant for the textual history of Romans 16. Three church fathers, Irenaeus,
Cyprian and Tertullian have not cited from Romans 15-16. However, the Muratorian
canon gives evidence for chapter 15 of Romans to Pauls journey to Spain.
7

letter forms are taken from Gamble, Textual History, 15-35, since Gamble discusses the textual
problems extensively.
5
Gamble, Textual History, 17. The capitula I-XXIII refers to Rom 1-14 and to these are added
capitula XXIV-L1 of the Amiatine system. The last capitulum of the Fuldensian series relates to Rom
14:1-23 and this is followed by the Amiatine capitulum, which refers to Rom 9, with the result of a
double description of Romans 9-14. The lack of Amiatine capitula I-XXIII could be explained by the
fact that the scribe compensated for this by adding from another MS without noticing the duplication.
Therefore the text would be 1:1-14:23, but without the doxology.
6
Gamble, Textual History, 18.
7
It is reported in the canon that Luke dealt only with the events for which he had been an eyewitness
in Acts and also reports about Pauls journey to Spain from Rome. The author of the Muratorian
6

Origens testimony on the textual history of Romans can be considered as the
most explicit one. In his Commentaria in epistolam ad Romanos Origen clearly states
that Marcion completely removed the doxology: Marcion, by whom the evangelical
and apostolic writings were falsified, completely removed this section (i.e., 16:25-
27) from this letter; and not only this, but also from that place where it is written all
that is not of faith is sin he cut it away up to the end.
8
It is reported by Origen that
in addition to removing the doxology, Marcion cut away everything following
14:23 and Marcion himself was the creator of the form of the letter. Origen also
refers to all the catholic MSS as containing the doxology, though not at the same
places but in Rom 14:23 and in other places at the end of Romans 16.
A fourteen chapter form of Romans can also be seen from the MS tradition
with a difference in the position of the doxology. Gamble lists five attested
possibilities for the place of the doxology with the evidence.
9

The doxology is the concluding element and therefore should be placed at the
end of the letter; therefore the presence of the doxology after 14:23 constitutes
indirect testimony to the fourteen chapter form of the text. That the position of the
doxology after 14:23 marks the conclusion of the letter is confirmed by several Latin

canon employs the term for Spain as Spania, which is also found in Rom 15:24 and 28 in showing
Pauls plan of a journey to Spain. So it can be inferred that the author of the Muratorian Canon was
acquainted with Rom 15.
8
See also Gamble, Textual History, 22.
9
The possibilities are: a) doxology after 16:23 (24) and only there: B C D E 81 436 630 1739 1962
2127 syr
p
cop vg def ar gig Origen Ambrosiaster Pelagius;
b) doxology after 14:23 and only there: L Y 181 326 330 451 460 614 1241 1877 1881 1984 1985
2492 2495 et plur.
40
syr
h
goth
41
Origen Chrystosum Cyril Theodoret John of Damascus pseudo-
Oecumenius;
c) doxology after both 14:23 and 16:23 (24): A P 5 17 33 104 109 arm;
d) doxology after15:33 and only there: P
46
;
e) doxology completely absent: G F 629 g E 26 inf. (BVL: G
B
) Marcion (Origen) Jerome
(Origen?) Priscillian.
From the above lists, it is significant to note that the doxology is placed at different positions and the
Greek tradition attests the position at the end of chapter 14, though it can be found there occasionally
also in the Latin. Gamble, Textual History, 23; B. M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek
New Testament (London: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/UBS,
2
1994), 470-472, 475-477.
7

MSS but just before the doxology they add a brief benediction.
10
It is also worth
noting that some of the MS evidence omits the doxology. Origen testifies to a
fourteen chapter text lacking the doxology by Marcion. Both Priscillian and Jerome
also give evidence for a text without the doxology but with the final two chapters. In
Priscillians letters, the final part in Romans is described only in terms of 16:21-23,
and Gamble suggests, if Priscillian had known the doxology it would probably have
been allotted a new and separate section since as a rule the sections cover small
amounts of text and take account of shifts in subject matters.
11

The Old Latin text witnesses the complete omission of the doxology. This is
clearly shown by the great family of Pauline bilingual MSS, codices Claromontanus
(D; BVL: 75), Boernerianus (G; BVL: 77) and Augiensis (F; BVL: 78). Thus, there
are three variants of the fourteen chapter form:
a) 1:1-14:23
b) 1:1-14:23 + 16:25-27
c) 1:1-14:23 + benediction + 16:25-27
b) The Fourteen Chapter Form and the Variants in 1:7 and 1:15
In some of the MS and Patristic witnesses, chapters 15-16 are omitted and also
the addressees of the letter in 1:7 and 1:15 are lacking. The only direct MS witness
for the complete omission of the Roman address in the first chapter is Codex
Boernerianus (G). Most texts read: toi~v ou]sin e0n 9Rw/mh| a0gaphtoi~v qeou~ but G
reads: toi~v ou]sin e0n a0ga/ph| qeou~. Likewise in 1:15 the words toi~v e0n 9Rw/mh| in the

10
Gamble, Textual History, 24. This was first observed by de Bruyne in MS i-2/9 (BVL: 86; Monza,
Biblioteca Capitolare) of the tenth century. After the doxology, the words gratia cum omnibus sanctis
followed. De Bruyne discovered two other MSS, Clm 17040 and 17043, with the same reading.
11
Gamble, Textual History, 25. The doxology can be seen missing in some other evidence too. In
Jeromes Commentariorum in epistolam ad Ephesios, the doxology is absent in the complete form. It
is not present in Codex Bobbiensis of the ninth or early tenth century and also in the Freising fragment
of the fifth or sixth century, which contains near the end of Romans only 14:10-15:13 and the
doxology is absent after 14:23.
8

phrase kai/ e0n u9mi~n toi~v e0n 9Rw/mh| eu0aggeli/sasqai are omitted in G. Augiensis
(F), the sister codex is altered from Rom 1:1-3:18, but the Greek text is almost
similar to that of G. Rome is also not mentioned by some old commentators namely
Origen and Ambrosiaster.
1.3.1.2. The Fifteen Chapter Form
A fifteen chapter form is also suggested in regard to the argument that Chapter
16 was originally addressed to the Ephesians rather than to the Roman church. It may
be argued that Romans circulated in the form of 1:1-15:33. The Chester Beatty
Papyrus of the Pauline letters (P
46
) provides the doxology between 15:33 and 16:1,
representing a tradition in which Romans apparently ended with chapter 15. Thus the
form is 1:1-15:33 +16:25-27.
12

1.3.1.3. The Sixteen Chapter Form
The sixteen chapter form with doxology is attested in the Greek New
Testament in modern editions and many existing manuscripts as well, although the
text is not uniform due to the difference in the presence and positions of the
benedictions found at the end of chapter 16. The benediction h9 xa/riv tou~ kuri/ou
h9mw~n 0Ihsou~ meq u9mw~n is found after 16:20a (as 16:20b) in modern editions.
Another benediction h9 xa/riv tou~ kuri/ou h9mw~n 0Ihsou~ Xristou~ meta\ pa/ntwn
u9mw~n. a0mh/n is found in many witnesses after the doxology as 16:23 and in a few
witnesses after 16:28.
13
The variations in the use of this benediction and position of
the doxology seem to be related.
As the various forms of the letter are discussed, the next attempt is to analyse
the destination of Romans 16.

12
See Gamble, Textual History, 33, 34.
13
For more discussion see Gamble, Textual History, 35.
9

1.3.2. The Ephesian Hypothesis
a) Variant Hypothesis
There are two issues regarding the Ephesian hypothesis: a) whether the
Ephesian letter constitutes a complete letter as in Rom 16, or only a part of a larger
Ephesian letter; and b) whether this Ephesian material was related to Romans as a
result of Pauls composition and circulation, or by a later redactional work.
14

One hypothesis holds that Rom 16 (16:1-23) was addressed to Ephesus and its
attachment to Romans was Pauls own work. The main proponent of this view is T.
W. Manson.
15
He proposed that Romans 1-15 is the original letter to the Romans,
but at the same time a copy was prepared to be sent to the Ephesian community.
16

This copy to the Ephesian church contains the whole of Romans 1-15 to which Paul
added chapter 16 as a letter of recommendation for Phoebe, the bearer of the letter to
Ephesus and Paul used his chance to greet his many friends in Asia and to include
the warning against false teaching. Thus the letter was composed of two editions
one addressed to Rome and the other to Ephesus, in which chapter 16 formed a unity

14
15
T. W. Manson, St. Pauls letter to the Romans - and Others, in K. P. Donfried, (ed.), The Romans
Debate, revised and expanded edition (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 3-15. He attributed the fourteen
chapter form to Marcion, who tried to eliminate all the references to Rome in 1:7, 15 along with Rom
15 for dogmatic reasons. Manson suggests that in Romans, Pauls reflective summation of his
definitive views on the relationship between Christianity and Judaism is dealt with more than
anywhere else. He disagrees that Romans is a letter of self-introduction for Paul himself, expecting a
friendly reception from his Roman friends, but argues that it is summing up or manifesto of Pauls
deepest convictions. But Bornkamm disagrees with Mansons rejection of Romans as a letter of self-
introduction and according to him Romans summarizes and develops the most important themes and
thoughts of the Pauline message and theology and the letter to the Romans is the last will and
testament of the Apostle Paul. See G. Bornkamm, The Letter to the Romans as Pauls Last Will and
Testament, in K. P. Donfried (ed.) The Romans Debate, 16-28.
16
Manson, St. Pauls Letter, 13. Cf. H. Koester, Ephesos in Early Christian Literature, in H.
Koester (ed.), Ephesos: Metropolis of Asia, (Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1995), 119-140, at 122,123.
Koester assumes that Romans 16 was a letter to Ephesus. The greetings to Pauls fellow workers and
personal acquaintances show that they must have been located in Ephesus rather than in Rome.
10

with the rest of the letter. Thus Manson argues for two textually attested forms of
Romans.
17

A second version of the Ephesian hypothesis regards the Ephesian matter of
Romans 16 as a piece of Pauls Ephesian correspondence. It is assumed that it was
joined to the Roman letter by a later redactor and has no connection with Romans.
This hypothesis argues, Romans was originally a circular letter, that chapter 16 was
appended to the copy addressed to Ephesus, and only later and wrongly became an
apparently integral part of the whole letter.
18
In fact there is division in the opinions
of scholars about what parts of Romans 16 are to be reckoned to the Ephesian
fragment: 16:3-20 as the Ephesian material with 16:1-2 as an integral part of the
Roman letter; or 16:1-2 as belonging to the Ephesian letter, as a letter of
recommendation for Phoebe etc.
b) Arguments
The arguments against the Roman address of Romans 16 suggest that, on the one
hand, its features are not suitable to a Roman address and, on the other hand, that it is
suitable to an Ephesian address. The form of chapter 16 and certain aspects of the
textual tradition demonstrate that chapter 16 is separate from the remainder of the
letter. Some 18
th
century scholars namely J. S. Semler, J. G. Eichhorn and David
Schulz observed that the content of Romans 16 seems not to be in agreement with a
Roman destination and that Romans 16:1-20 was in fact a letter of Paul to the
Ephesian church.

17
Gamble, Textual History, 42; See T. W. Manson, St. Pauls Letter to the Romans and Others,
in M. Black (ed.), Studies in the Gospels and Epistles (Manchester: Manchester University Press,
1962), 225-241, at 239.
18
J. Ziesler, Pauls Letter to the Romans (TPI; London: SCM, 1989), 20.
11

External Evidence
a. The oldest manuscript for Pauls letters is P
46
, dated as early as the beginning
of the third century. In this manuscript, as we have noted, the closing doxology
(16:25-27) is placed at the end of chapter 15. P
46
(third century CE) is the only
manuscript that has the closing doxology at the end of Romans 15, but its evidence
cannot be neglected completely and it seems to suggest an edition of Romans with 15
chapters.
19

b. The independence of Romans 16 is further explained by its epistolary form.
Chapter 16 has its close formal correspondence with the ancient letter of
recommendation (e0pistolh\ sustatikh/) as known from the documentary remains of
the Hellenistic period.
20
The three basic elements of the commendation letter in
Romans 16:1, 2 such as introducing the person, description of the person and the
request on their behalf for some favour are similar to the ancient letters of
recommendation. Thus possibly the long list of greetings is necessary, since a
woman traveller such as Phoebe would have need of a document assuring her
welcome by the individuals and family groups named.
21

Internal Evidence
a. Extent of greetings
It is assumed that the unusual number of greetings to individuals and groups in
Romans 16 leads to a question about Pauls acquaintance with them, as he had never
visited the Roman churches before, and also suggests the possibility of an Ephesian
destination. At the time of writing Romans Paul had not visited the city or the

19
Ziesler, Romans, 20; Gamble, Textual History, 40.
20
21
E. J. Goodspeed, Phoebes Letter of Introduction, HTR 44 (1951), 56-57; J. I. H. McDonald,
Was Romans 16 a Separate Letter? NTS 16 (1970), 369-71, at 370-71. McDonald argues that
Romans 16:1-23 appears as an independent letter on the basis of the resemblance of Romans 16 to a
short letter of Greco-Roman times.
12

Christian community of Rome, but has shown clearly his desire to visit the church at
Rome (1:10, 11; cf. 1:13, 15): now at last I may find a way in the will of God to
come to you, for I long to see you I am ready to preach the gospel to you who are
in Rome also. Again towards the end of the letter, he reminds them of his wish to
come to Rome and, on his way of mission to Spain, to visit the Roman community
(15:19b-23; 15:24, 28-29). From these verses it is implied that Paul is expecting to
visit the Christian community in Rome for the first time. The greetings to twenty-six
persons, who are mentioned by name, and five groups, might appear unlikely since
Paul had never visited Rome.
22

b. Warning against False Teachers
Another argument which seems favourable to an Ephesian destination is the
presence of the warning against the false teachers in 16:17-20, which is not relevant
to Romans. Paul usually stresses his apostolic authority against the issues of false
teaching in the churches he founded; as there is no reference to false teaching in
Romans 1-15, such a warning at the close of the letter is strange and thus this does
not agree with that of the Roman community. The tone and content of 16:17-20 can
be regarded as appropriate to Ephesus due to the existence of false teaching, which is

22
Moreover, the descriptions of the persons to be greeted are noteworthy. Most of the names in Rom
16 cannot be found anywhere in the New Testament. One of the arguments for the Ephesian
destination of Romans is that the people mentioned in Romans 16 are more readily associated with
Ephesus than with Rome. Among them the names of Prisca and Aquila are notable since it is assumed
that they were in Asia (1 Cor 16:19: probably in Ephesus, cf. Acts 18:24-26), and in Acts 18:2 it is
mentioned that they were expelled from Rome. Pauls admonition to greet the church in their house
is also a possible argument. In 2 Tim 4:19, greetings are sent to Prisca and Aquila, who are in
Ephesus. Thus all the evidence apart from Romans places them in Ephesus. If they were in Ephesus
as late as the writing of 1 Corinthians, they are hardly expected to be in Rome, with a house church
there also (Rom 16:5a), so soon afterward. Gamble, Textual History, 38.
We are not provided with any information of other individuals with their non-Roman location.
However, it can be inferred from the descriptions of those greeted. Epaenetus is greeted with the
description as the first convert in Asia for Christ (Rom 16:5), which suggests his stay in Ephesus.
Some descriptions of persons being greeted suggest Pauls personal association and since Paul had
never visited Rome before, it may be argued that the greetings are not directed to Rome but to another
community which Paul knows well. For instance Epaenetus and Stachys are called my beloved
(16:5b, 9), Mary is described as one who has laboured much for us (16:6), Andronicus and Junia are
my fellow prisoners (16:7) and Rufus mother is referred to us Pauls own mother (16:13). The first
person possessive pronoun indicates the closeness of the relationship with Paul and suggests a non-
Roman address of Romans 16.
13

attested in 1 and 2 Timothy.
23
Therefore by comparing Rom 16 with other Pauline
letters, the heretics can be situated in a community Paul knew well and in which he
previously worked.
These are the major arguments for the non-Roman and the Ephesian
destination of Rom 16.
1.3.3. Arguments for Romans 16 as an integral part of the Romans letter
It will be argued here that Romans consists of 16 chapters and is addressed to
Rome. First we will list the evidence to show that the fourteen chapter form is not a
complete form of the letter addressed to the Romans.
The internal evidence of the letter does not support the view that the fourteen-
chapter text was the letter sent to Rome:
1. The exhortation to the strong and weak in faith begins from 14:1 and
continues till 15:13, and so it is improbable for the letter to end in 14:23.
2. If we assume that the letter ends with 14:23, then the specific address
and the concluding formulae would be missing.
3. Chapter 15 and chapter 14 are clearly related, just as there is a close
link between 15:14-32 and 1:8-13, and therefore chapter 15 could not be
separated from the rest of the letter.
The problem of the letter to Romans is between a fifteen and a sixteen chapter
form. The fundamental problem is whether chapter 16 belongs to Pauls letter to
Rome. Against the thesis that chapter 16 (or some part of it) was originally a
separate piece addressed to some other community, usually thought to be Ephesus,
24

we will canvass here the external and internal evidence.

23
Manson, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 13. See also Gamble, Textual History, 39, 40.
24
14

1. Although the oldest manuscript P
46
places the doxology after chapter 15
(the first textual attestation for a fifteen-chapter form of Romans
25
), this evidence
of one MS cannot be accepted without question, and it is difficult to conclude that
Romans had originally 15 chapters. However, it is possible to think that P
46

represents a Roman letter then adapted by the addition of chapter 16 and sent to
another church. But for this, there should be references to Rome in 1:7, 15, and that
is lacking as the early chapters of the letter are missing from P
46
. It is plausible to
assume that the presence of the doxology after 15:33 does seem to point to the
existence at one time of a 15 chapter form of Romans. However, it is important to
consider the fact that the Latin MSS of the Vulgate which omit chapter 16 also omit
chapter 15, or they have them both in one block (15:1-33 and 16:1-23). Therefore,
Lampe argues, 15:1-16:23 have to be treated as one unit by the textual critic - one
block which is addressed to Rome.
26
It is also assumed that the doxology (16:25-27)
is non-Pauline and Marcionite in origin, thus solving the text critical problems of that
segment.
27
Though the position of the doxology varies and it is absent in some of the
manuscripts, the non-Pauline character of the doxology cannot be attested from the
evidence of the manuscripts alone.

25
26
P. Lampe, The Roman Christians of Romans 16, in K. P. Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate,
217. Lampe suggests two exceptions to this rule. a) The miniscule 1506 from the year 1320 has
chapter 15, but omits 16:1-23 ... The genealogical trees (stemmas), which have been proposed for the
manuscripts of the letter to the Romans agree that the text of miniscule 1506 is a descendant of
Marcions Roman text (Rom 1-14) and of texts that offer chapters 15 and 16:1-23 as one block
together ... The ancestors of miniscule 1506 assure that Romans 15 and 16:1-23 belong together once
we come to the older strata of textual history. b) P
46
from the year ca. 200 reads chapters 1-14; 15;
16:25-27; 16:1-23. It presents both chapters 15 and 16:1-23, but they do not appear in one block.
Lampe denies the possibility of P
46
supporting the hypothesis that Pauls original letter included only
chapters 1-15.
27
W. G. Kmmel, Introduction to the New Testament (Nashville: Abingdon,1975), 310-14; C. K.
Barrett, A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (London: A & C Black, 1957), 11-13; Manson,
Pauls Letter to the Romans, 8; Donfried, Short Note on the Romans, in Donfried (ed.), Romans
Debate, 50. It is assumed that the Pauline letter to the Romans ends with 16:23 and the doxology is
composed by Marcion.
15

Another factor which needs consideration is that although 15:33 has the
appearance of the ending of the letter, it contains no reference to grace,
28
which is
an essential ingredient in the other Pauline conclusions (Rom 16:20; 1 Cor 16:23; 2
Cor 13:14; Gal 6:18; Eph 6:24; Phil 4:23; Col 4:18; 1 Thess 5:28; 2 Thess 3:18;
Philemon 25) and even the Pastoral Epistles agree with this pattern. There is no
reference to grace after v.15 in Romans 15. Therefore most likely Paul would not
have ended the letter with Romans 15:33. Lampe suggests that formulations like
God of peace [with you] never end the letter but precede requests to greet
greetings like the ones in Romans 16 and also the de in Romans 16:1 on the other
hand presupposes a previous text; thus there is continuity between chapters 15 and
16.
29

2. Although Paul had never visited the Roman community at the time of
writing, this does not rule out the possibility of his friendship with the members of
the Roman church. The possibility for Paul having friends in Rome cannot be
discarded due to the general mobility of individuals and groups about the Imperium
Romanum and the forceful westward thrust of the early Christian missionary
enterprise.
30

3. The extent of the greetings shows that this is addressed to Rome rather than
to Ephesus.
a. The greetings in Romans 16 are an exception when compared to the other
Pauline letters. The other letters of Paul are also addressed to churches founded by
Paul himself and he is familiar with those churches; in such contexts he did not

28
Ziesler notes the absence of the element of grace in 15:33. Ziesler, Romans, 21.
29
Lampe, Roman Christians, 217. The peace wish followed by requests for greetings can be seen in
the other Pauline letters like Phil 4:9; 2 Cor 13:11; 1 Thess 5:23; 2 Thess 3:16. a0mh/n does not
conclude letters: Rom 1:25; 9:5; 11:36; Gal 1:5; 1 Thess 3:13, etc.
30
Gamble, Textual History, 47; Cf. the lengthy essay of G. La Piana, Foreign Groups at Rome, HTR
20 (1927) 183-403.
16

particularise the greetings as in Romans, rather what is found is in the form of a
collective greeting.
31
In this light, could we assume that the Roman community is
well-known to Paul? One of the purposes of the greetings in Romans can be seen as
to prepare the way for his coming and to enlist the support of the Roman
Community for his western missionary work, one means of achieving this was to
single out those who he knew or was known by, thus claiming them as his personal
references.
32

b. It is also striking that in Romans 16 the greetings to 26 persons and five
groups indicate Pauls personal connections in a community that he had never
visited.
33
The greetings of Romans present two peculiarities compared to other
Pauline letters: they are directed to individuals, and the list of greetings is unusually
long. It seems that the list of greetings is recommendation for Paul himself rather
than for Phoebe (16:1-2). Lampe suggests that Paul sends greetings to individuals
whom he knows in person although he does not know the Roman church; common
friends build a bridge of confidence between people who do not know each other.
34

It is also worth noting that the greetings are not direct greetings from Paul to his
personal friends, but he instructs the Romans to greet them. The greetings are sent to
the Roman church as a whole and the whole church is involved in the action of
greeting. So they are not merely communication between Paul and the individuals
greeted. Therefore it can be seen as a Pauline strategy to bring about unity in the
Roman church.

31
32
Gamble, Textual History, 48, 49. Cf. C. H. Dodd, The Epistle of Paul to the Romans (London:
Collins, 1932), 20.
33
Lampe, Roman Christians, 218.
34
Lampe, Roman Christians, 218. The same pattern of greeting can be seen in Colossians (4:7f, 15,
17). Although he doesnt know the church, he greets some individuals stating his relations with them.
17

c. Paul does not claim that he knows every one of the persons greeted but only
that he knows very clearly some of them. The familiar descriptive characterisation of
some individuals, namely Prisca and Aquila, Epaenetus, Andronicus, Junia,
Ampliatus, Stachys, Rufus and the mother of Rufus suggest Pauls familiarity with
them. As Ziesler suggests, the Roman church after its partial return from exile was
in danger of fragmentation and it existed in different house churches; in chapter 16,
Paul is trying to mention all such groups.
35
The other letters of Paul (the undisputed:
1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians and even Philemon)
when compared to Romans 16 have very few personal greetings and this can be
argued as a reason for a Roman destination rather than an Ephesian destination. As
we explore Pauls endearment to or praise of these persons, it will appear that these
persons are important for the Church and might have been able to travel in ways that
brought them into encounter with Paul, or make them known to him, before ending
up in the Roman churches.
d. The descriptive phrases used for the individuals which were used to argue
for an Ephesian destination can have an effect in the opposite direction. If these
individuals are still in Ephesus at the writing of Paul, then the words of introduction
have no effect as the church in Ephesus is already familiar with them, as Prisca and
Aquila are his fellow workers, Epaenetus is the first convert of Asia and Andronicus
and Junia are notable among the apostles. But in a context where Christians are
relatively little known to each other, such as the Roman churches, such description of
praise make better sense. They may know Timothy as Pauls fellow worker and other
fellow workers are mentioned in 16:21-23. Even the ecumenical greeting of 16:16
fits well to Rome and 16:4 is stated with thanks for Prisca and Aquila from all the

35
Ziesler, Pauls Letter to the Romans, 21.
18

churches of Gentiles. Though it is unusual in Paul, as Lampe suggests, this global
perspective can be easily explained by the unique situation of Romans 1-15. Paul
stands on the door step between east and west.
36
As Paul is planning to work in
Spain, he wants the support of the Romans (15:19-23). Lampe suggests that the
greetings from all churches are the best recommendation for Paul himself
although Paul never visited the Roman Church.
37
But the greetings serve as a
significant aspect in creating a bond of relationship and bringing about unity between
the members of the community, and the communities as well, rather than merely
supporting Pauls own purpose.
e. The proponents who hold the view that Romans 16 was a part of Roman
address have supported their opinion by referring to the evidence from other sources
and also inscriptional evidence. The argument put forward by J. B. Lightfoot is on
the basis of Romans 16:10-11 of oi9 e0k tw~n 0Aristobou/lou and e0k tw~n Narki/ssou.
He argues that the designations referred to persons among the households of
Aristobulus ... and of Narcissus, ... members of the imperial household by inheritance
from their former heads, and thus a Roman location is possible.
38
Gamble suggests
that the argument has some force as Paul did not usually indicate a house church by
using oi9 e0k tw~ n.
39

f. The question whether the admonition in Rom 16:16-20 is suitable for a
Roman address needs to be explored on the basis of its tone and content. Lampe
suggests that if there appears to be a change in tone, then possibly that is not directed
to the Romans, who are even praised (16:19) like in the rest of the letter (1:8; 15:14);

36
37
38
J. B. Lightfoot, St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians, (London: Macmillan, 1894), 72, 73. Lightfoot
bases his argument on Phil 4:22 where those of Caesars household are greeted (e0k th~v Kai/sarov
oi0ki/av).
39

19

rather this is directed against the possible heretics not belonging to the Roman
church but planning to infiltrate it.
40
The content of 16:16-20 is explained not in
terms of the content of Rom 1-15, since there is no suggestion of the existence of
false teaching present in the community. But Paul may have in mind a possible
danger that could attack the community, so this cannot hinder Romans 16 from being
addressed to Rome.
Therefore the Ephesian destination for Romans 16 seems to be improbable, and
it is difficult to detach it from what precedes it. To sum up, on the basis of the
preceding study, it appears that Romans 16 is an integral part of the Pauline letter to
Romans. The textual evidence proves the possibility of Romans 16 being addressed
to Rome. The content of Romans 16 also shows that it agrees well with the Pauline
purpose in his letter to the Romans. The greetings function to create bonds between
his personal friends and the Romans, between the Romans and himself, and among
the Romans themselves despite their social and ethnic diversity.
41
The greetings are
sent to the Roman church as a whole and thus all the members of the church are
joined in the mutual greetings, which indeed create love and unity among them. The
style and structure of the Pauline epistolary conclusions show that without the
sixteenth chapter, the 15 chapter text lacks an epistolary conclusion and the unusual
aspects of some elements in ch. 16 find cogent explanation only on the assumption of
its Roman address.
42

40
Lampe, Roman Christians, 221. Scholars are divided in their opinion regarding the authenticity of
these verses: one group suggests a Pauline postscript (Moo [D. J. Moo, The Epistle to the Romans
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 929], Fitzmyer [ J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans: A New Translation with
Introduction and Commentary (AB 33; New York: Doubleday, 1993], 745), while the other explains
the distinct features as due to non-Pauline interpolation (Jewett [ R. Jewett, Christian Tolerance:
Pauls Message to the Modern Church (Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982), 17-23], Ollrog [WH.
Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. (WMANT 50; Neurkirchen: Neukirchener, 1979), 226-34]. For
more discussion see R. Jewett, Romans (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007), 986-996.
41
See for more discussion on the greetings, chapter 2.
42
20

1.4. The Women Named in Rom 16
Romans 16 opens with the letter of recommendation for Phoebe (Rom 16:1,
2), which is followed by the greetings (16:3-15), the general exhortation of greetings
with a holy kiss (16:16), hortatory remarks (16:17-20), the grace benediction
(16:21b), the greetings from Pauls associates (16:21-23) and a second grace
benediction (16:24). This study focuses on 16:1-16, which includes the letter of
introduction for Phoebe and the greetings to twenty six persons out of whom twenty
four persons are named and nine are women. The women named in Rom 16 are
Phoebe (a0delfh/, dia/konov, and prosta/tiv), Prisca (co-worker), Junia (fellow-
prisoner, outstanding among the apostles), Mary, Tryphoena and Tryphosa, Persis
(hard working members), Julia, Nereus sister and Rufus mother (mother of Paul). I
will argue that the women mentioned in the list with special descriptions were the
leaders of communities and had influential participation in the church, since they are
designated with titles similar to those of the male associates of Paul or of Paul
himself.
In recent years, the two main areas of discussion have been: the specific
connotation of the titles used for the women and their social roles in relation to the
Pauline mission and the Roman church in particular. In order to situate my research,
a brief survey of previous research is in order regarding the roles of women (Rom
16:1-16), their relationship with Paul and their toil for the church.
1.4.1. Phoebe
The major debates on Phoebe concern her expected role in relation to the
Roman church, her position as dia/konov of the church of Cenchreae, and her status
implied by the title prosta/tiv. The interpretation of dia/konov ranges from
21

practical help to the recognized leadership of the church of Cenchreae, and
prosta/tiv ranges from helper to benefactor.
43

Regarding her expected mission to the Romans, Jewett proposes that Phoebes
task in relation to the Roman church is to be the patroness of the Spanish mission,
which he considers as the purpose of the letter of Romans. He considers Phoebe as
an upper class benefactor and that her responsibility is to create a logistical base for
the Spanish mission. The responsibilities of Phoebe in relation to the Spanish mission
are three-fold: to present the letter to the various congregations in Rome and discuss
its contents and implications with church leaders; to persuade the independent house
churches that Paul was a reliable person for the Spanish Mission project; and to seek
the advice and counsel of the Roman house churches to find suitable resources for
the mission in Spain.
44
He also argues that the greetings (Rom 16:3-16) following
the recommendation for Phoebe work as if those persons are being recruited as
advisers and supporters of Paul and Phoebe.
45

I suggest that this interpretation of the role of Phoebe as the ambassador for
the Spanish mission project and the people mentioned in the greetings as recruited to
support her are highly reductionist, since Romans is a letter permeated with Pauline
theological contributions to the communitys mutual behaviour and the greetings are
commendation of the aforementioned individuals partnership in Christian mission as
well as partnership with him and his mission. Moreover, I doubt whether Phoebe is a
wealthy and upper class benefactor as Jewett proposes, since wealth may not be an

43
Cranfield and Ksemann suggest the role of informal service and helper. See C. E. B. Cranfield, A
Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, 2 Vols. (Edinburgh: T& T Clark,
1979), 781; E. Ksemann, Commentary on Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980), 410.
44
Jewett, Romans, 90. See also R. Jewett, Paul, Phoebe, and Spanish Mission, in J. Neusner, et al.
(eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to Howard Clark
Kee (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 144-64; Jewett, Romans, 89-91, 941-948.
45
Jewett, Romans, 948.
22

essential requisite for being the patron in the earliest churches.
46
The purpose of the
requests on behalf of Phoebe seems open ended and is misapprehended by Jewett
when he interprets it solely in terms of the Spanish mission.
Pauls recommendation of Phoebe opens another avenue of research on her
relation to Paul as superior or inferior. Whelan suggests that the relation between
Paul and Phoebe implies some sort of mutual obligation. He suggests, in Rom 16
Paul is exploiting this network of clients on behalf of Phoebe introducing her to
his network of connections and thereby reciprocating her benefactions to him and his
church.
47
Whelans suggestion of the mutual obligation between Paul and Phoebe is
significant to my thought; however, I would go further and suggest that the mutual
obligation is not confined to Phoebe but extended to the individuals and groups
greeted, since Rom 16:3-16, apart from commendation of the individuals hard
work, reveals Pauls rhetorical strategy to apply his theological and ethical
admonitions of mutual relations in the previous chapters (12-15). Paul probably
wants to bring to light not only the mutual obligations between Phoebe and himself
but also between many and Phoebe, calling on the mutual relations within a wider
community of people.
Cotters view that Phoebes role as benefactress is conventional carries
important implications for my research as I take into account the socio-historical
context of the passage and analyse womens leadership roles as well as participatory
roles in the religious, political and cultural spheres of the Greco-Roman world.

46
Meggitt suggests that it is not plausible to infer that the individuals mentioned by Paul in his letters
are mentioned due to the fact that they are elite or prosperous in the society. J. Meggitt, Paul,
Poverty and Survival (SNTW, Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998), 134.
47
C. F. Whelan, Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church, JSNT 49 (1993), 67-85, at
84. There is a sense of mutual indebtedness between Paul and Phoebe; Phoebe is the patron of Paul
and Paul is reciprocating her actions. Whelan suggests Phoebe is sent to the Ephesian church, while I
suggest that Phoebe is sent to the church in Rome and that Romans 16 is an integral part of the letter
to the Romans. See also J. C. Campbell, Phoebe: Patron and Emissary (Pauls Social Network:
Brothers and Sisters in Faith; Minnesota: Liturgical Press, 2009).
23

According to Cotter, Phoebes role as benefactress and guardian is evidence of the
financial independence possible for many women in the Imperial period. She also
may have been able to act as guardian due to influential people among her family
members and friends. Such exercise of power is completely conventional.
48

The social and theological role of Phoebe has been a topic of interest in recent
years.
49
Many commentators have also highlighted the role of Phoebe in relation to
the Pauline mission.
50
Although the role of Phoebe and relations to Paul have been
the object of focus in previous studies, the aspect of mutuality embedded in her
social and ecclesial leadership roles is given lesser attention. The structure of the
passage, the titles used, the requests on behalf of Phoebe highlight her social and
theological role as well as mutuality in her relationship to Paul and the wider
community and all these will be the focus of my interest.
51

1.4.2. Prisca
Prisca is greeted with her husband Aquila and her name is put in the first
place as they are greeted as wife and husband. The major debates are about the
social status of Prisca and her house church leadership.
The social status of Prisca and Aquila has been widely debated. On the one
hand, scholars suggest that they are of relatively high status because of their

48
W. Cotter, Womens Authority Roles in Pauls Churches: Countercultural or Conventional NovT
36 (1994), 350-372, at 369.
49
A. D. Clarke, Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female: Pauls Theology of Ethnic, Social
and Gender Inclusiveness in Romans 16, in Rome in the Bible and the Early Church, Peter Oakes
(ed.) (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2002), 103-125, at 117. E. E. Ellis, Paul and His Co-
workers, DPL, 183-189, at 185. E. E. Ellis, Paul and His Co-Workers, NTS 17 (1977), 437-452, at
442; E. S. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of Christian Origins
(London: SCM, 1995); E. S. Fiorenza, Missionaries, Apostles, Co-workers: Romans 16 and the
Reconstruction of Womens Early Christian History, WW 6 (1986), 420-433, at 426; See S. Croft,
Text Messages: The Ministry of Women and Romans 16, Anvil 21 (2004), 87-94, at 89. D. C.
Arichea, Who was Phoebe? Translating Diakonos in Romans 16:1, BT 39 (1988), 401-409, at 409; J.
M. Bassler, Phoebe, in Carol Meyers (ed.) Women in Scripture (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000),
134-135 at 135.
50
Cranfield, Romans, 2:781; Ksemann, Romans, 410; J. D. G. Dunn, Romans 9-16 (WBC; Texas:
Word Books, 1988), 886, 887; Fitzmyer, Romans, 729-730; Jewett, Romans, 945.
51
See below chapter 4; 4.2.
24

patronage of Paul, frequent travels, and the capacity to own property in Corinth,
Ephesus, and Rome, large enough for house churches.
52
On the other, on the basis
of Aquilas trade and the travel costs, it is imagined that they are not of high status.
53

Although Meggitt is right that the criteria suggesting high status (hospitality for the
meetings of the saints and references to travel) are not sustainable grounds for
regarding an individual as wealthy,
54
presumably they were relatively wealthy. It is
unusual for a females name of a married couple to be given precedence; Winter
argues that placing a wifes name ahead of the husbands would indicate that the
wife was either of a higher rank or higher social status than he.
55
This might
indicate her role in relation to the church, her personal contribution and her
relationship to Paul and his mission, which is evident in the title my co-workers.
As Jewett suggests, this usage is unique to Paul and reveals a distinctive Pauline
approach to missional collegiality, referring both to himself and to others with this
egalitarian term.
56
I consider that a mutuality model is possibly the best model to
follow in the ministerial partnership. The greeting formula a0spa/sasqe is combined
with a thanksgiving formula eu0xaristw~ in order to express indebtedness not only
from Paul but also from all the churches of the Gentiles (pa~sai ai9 e0kklhsi/ai tw~n
e0qnw~n), implying mutuality between Paul and Prisca as well as Paul, Prisca and all
the churches of the Gentiles.

52
Jewett, Romans, 956; G. Theissen, The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982), 90; W. Meeks, The First Urban Christians (New Haven: Yale
University Press, 1983), 59.
53
P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries (Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2003), 195. He suggests that a lower status is possible because of the trade of Aquila
and that the cost of travel is also affordable to lower class people.
54
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 134, 135. He argues that hospitality is not indicative of elite
status since the desire of one to give to others is a matter of goodwill rather than wealth.
55
B. W. Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline
Communities (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003), 180. See also R. MacMullen, Women in Public in the
Roman Empire, Historia 29 (1980), 208-18, at 209.
56
25

Fiorenza argues for Priscas house church leadership since the house church
provided space for the preaching of the word, for worship, as well as for social and
eucharistic table sharing.
57
Fiorenza suggests that the house churches presuppose
that some wealthy citizens have joined the Christian movement, who could provide
space and economic resources for the community. Pauls rhetorical strategy in
greeting Prisca describes an aspect of mutuality embedded in her leadership roles as
he appreciates and acknowledges her contribution to the Pauline mission.
1.4.3. Junia
The current debates on Junia, who is greeted with Andronicus, are: the name
gender debate (Junias [male name] or Junia [female name]); whether she is an insider
of the apostolic circle or an outsider; and whether she was Joanna of the Jerusalem
church. The argument on the name was founded on the question whether a woman
could be an apostle in the church. Those who agree that Junia was a woman move
further to argue whether she exercised her leadership among the apostles.
Most recently, Epp argues that Junia is a woman apostle and she is
outstanding among the apostles.
58
Epp argues that unless Paul had found the qualities
of apostleship in Andronicus and Junia, he would not have called them apostles and
even as outstanding among the apostles, (there is no evidence that they witnessed
the resurrected Jesus), but points to the fact that they were in Christ before he was
and they were in prison with Paul and therefore had suffered as he had for his
apostleship.
59
Thus it is significant that Paul is acknowledging them as outstanding
among the apostles.

57
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 175.
58
E. J. Epp, Junia: The First Woman Apostle (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2005), 69, 70.
59
Epp, Junia, 69, 70. There is no evidence whether they saw Jesus after the resurrection.
26

However, B. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace argue that Junia was well known to
the apostles rather than outstanding among them.
60
In a recent article titled Did Paul
call Andronicus an Apostle in Romans 16:7? David Hutter argues, The lexical-
grammatical evidence makes it possible, the evidence from the context is
inconclusive, and the historical evidence makes the non-inclusive interpretation more
probable.
61
Similar to Epp, L. Belleville suggests that Junia is a feminine name and
she is notable among the apostles by examining the computer databases of
Hellenistic Greek literary works, papyri, inscriptions, and artifacts.
62
R. S. Cervin
discussed the Latin names and the method of transcription into Greek and
demonstrated that from the nature of the name and the nature of transcribing Latin
names into Greek, Iunia is a feminine name.
63
J. Thorley discusses the arguments for
Junia on linguistic grounds.
64
Winter deals with women in the civic context,
exploring the possibility of comparing Junia Theodora with Phoebe and with Junia.
65

Bauckham opts for a sound-equivalence theory for the names Joanna and
Junia.
66
Bauckham builds up his arguments upon the presuppositions that Junia and
Andronicus were among the founders of the Jerusalem Christian community and
Pauls description as prominent among the apostles would be meaningful with
reference to her prominence among the women followers of Jesus.
67

Although her roles are discussed in the previous research, Pauls purpose of
including Junia in the list of greetings and describing her special characteristics with

60
M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-examination of Rom 16:7,
NTS 47 (2001), 76-91.
61
D. Hutter, Did Paul call Andronicus an Apostle in Romans 16:7? JETS (2009), 747-778, at 778.
62
L. Belleville, 0Iouniane0pi/shmoi e0n toi~v a0posto/loiv: A Re-examination of Romans 16:7 in
Light of Primary Source Materials, NTS 51 (2005), 231-249.
63
R. S. Cervin, A Note regarding the name Junias in Romans 16:7, NTS 40 (1994), 464-470.
64
J. Thorley, Junia, A Woman Apostle, NovT 38 (1996), 18-26.
65
Winter, Roman Wives, Roman Widows, 193-204. See pp. 84, 85.
66
R. Bauckham, The Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2002), 181-194.
67
Bauckham, Gospel Women, 184.
27

special implications for the Roman church have not been brought to the stage
significantly. I would like to build upon Pauls descriptions that imply the different
possibilities in which she is remarkable to the Roman church and thus bring to light
the aspect of mutuality in the description of Junias leadership role as well as her
partnership in Christian mission.
1.4.4. Other Women Members of the Greeting list
The same descriptive phrase (to labour kopia/w, Rom 16:6, 12) is used to
describe four of the women in the greeting list - Mary, Tryphoena, Tryphosa and
Persis: polla\ e0kopi/asen ei0v u9ma~v to denote Mary (v.6); polla\ e0kopi/asen e0n
Kuri/w| to denote Persis (v.12); kopiw/sav e0n Kuri/w| to denote Tryphoena and
Tryphosa (v.12). Dunn argues that the term does not denote a leadership function as
in 1 Thess 5:17, because Paul merely recognises devoted work on behalf of the
church (1 Cor 16:16; 1 Thess 5:12).
68
But again their roles within larger relationships
of mutuality need to be considered.
Paul states that Rufus mother was also a mother of mine (16:13). Though it
is unclear what Paul really meant by this, it could be inferred that she might have
helped him in a specific situation or ministered to him regularly at some point in his
labours.
69
Nereus sister and Julia are mentioned in a cluster of names in v.15
without any designation. The inclusion in the greeting list implies some sort of
recognition of their participation in ministry and his mutual obligation although it is
not specified in what ways.
The unusually long list of greetings in Rom 16 with a number of women
greeted and appreciated for their toil and hard work in relation to Paul and the
members of the Roman church, poses certain questions regarding the aim of Paul in

68
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 894.
69
T. R. Schreiner, Romans (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998), 793.
28

greeting them along with other male members of the Roman church. Prima facie,
these women presumably assumed leadership roles along with Paul or his male
associates, probably those mentioned in the greeting list in Rom 16 or others who are
mentioned with the same descriptive phrases in the other epistles. The concept of
mutuality is easily lost inside those sections, and I would like to revive it by looking
through the lens of Pauls exhortations in the previous chapters. Paul S. Minear gives
a passing reference to this in his discussion of Phoebe: Would she be able to present
more fully and directly the reasons for mutual acceptance which Paul had set forth in
earlier sections of the letter?
70
It is crucial to find out how these womens leadership
roles are embedded in the question of relationships of mutuality. I will look at the
mutual relations between Paul and the women mentioned and also between the
people mentioned in the passage, between both men and women and the whole range
of people included in the greetings in Rom 16:16. The leadership role of these
specially named women in the whole context of Pauline church leadership, as
motivated by the model of mutuality in the sphere of relationships, is a new avenue
of research.
1.5. Womens leadership in Pauline Churches
Women in Pauline church leadership have been a focus of attention due to the
incompatible Pauline statements about the roles of women in the church, especially
the prohibition and restriction on their participation in church activities, veiling and
silence in the church (1 Cor 11; 14). Other epistles witness Paul appreciating women
for their hard work and toil in relation to him as well as the church. So there seems to
be a question of inconsistency in Pauline views on women. I would like to list some
of the positive and negative affirmations of womens role by recent studies which

70
P. S. Minear, The Obedience of Faith; The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the Romans (SBT
2/19; London: SCM, 1971), 24.
29

relate to hierarchical, feminist and egalitarian models in the relational and leadership
arena of womens position. Although an extensive analysis of different views is
impossible due to limitations of space, they are important as backdrop for the
research. What is fascinating to me is whether a model of mutuality is pertinent and
practical in the proper functioning of gender roles.
Fiorenza suggests that the history of the early Christian movement includes the
leadership of women and is egalitarian.
71
She comments, women and men in the
Christian community are not defined by their sexual procreative capacities or by their
religious, cultural or social gender roles, but by their discipleship and empowering
with the Spirit.
72
She regards Gal 3:28 as a communal Christian self-definition
rather than a statement about the baptized individual and the differences of religion,
class, race, nationality and gender are irrelevant because all are baptized and are one
in Christ.
73
She propounds a feminist Christian spirituality and discipleship of
equals
74
and comments on two major objections: the church of women does not
share in the fullness of the church and the charge of reverse sexism and the
appeal to mutuality with men whenever we gather together as the ekklesia of
women in her name.
75
She suggests for the second objection that women in turn
have to reclaim their spiritual powers and to exorcise their possession by male
idolatry before mutuality is possible.
76
I try to define the relationship between men

71
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 140. In 1993, she published a work titled Discipleship of Equals: A
Critical Feminist Ekklesia-logy of liberation, in which she shares her vision about the world of justice
and well being against the powers of patriarchal oppression and dehumanisation. E. S. Fiorenza,
Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesia-logy of liberation (New York: Cross Road,
1993). Luise Schotroff visions a liberated womanhood in relation to God rather than affirming
equality with men. Luise Schotroff, Lydias Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early
Christianity, trans. by Barbara and Martin Rumscheidt (Louisville: John Knox, 1995).
72
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 212, 213.
73
74
75
76
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 347. C. Heyward and Mary Grey argue for the concept of relationality
in their feminist approaches, which is significant as it has redemptive and healing power. C.
Heyward, The Redemption of God: The Theology of Mutual Relation (Washington, D.D. University
30

and women in a model of mutuality which is not divorced from the egalitarian model
as such but entails it. The egalitarian model seems to be a static phenomenon, while
mutuality is dynamic.
The negative statements regarding womens participation in worship as well as
the church pose a problem since Paul appreciates women in the church and
acknowledges their leadership roles in Rom 16:1-16. Wire argues that the women
prophets in Corinths church have a place in the group Paul is addressing, some role
in the rhetorical situation.
77
According to Wire, 1 Corinthians mostly concerns
women directly or indirectly. It is directed to one party in Corinth the Corinthian
Prophets.
78
She tries to reconstruct the authority of the women prophets in the
Corinthian community, by whom Paul feels threatened. Interestingly, these issues do
not arise in Romans.
Although womens exercise of power in the Imperial period is completely
conventional, Cotter argues that the women in Pauls letters who show themselves
to be leaders in these communities appeared to fit into cultural norms acceptable in
Roman culture. But the reality of their involvement due to the character of the
assembly as Gods ekklesia endowed the leadership with a countercultural equality
with the men members of the community.
79
In the context of the Christian church,
Cotters finding is very significant since Romans calls forth an aspect of mutuality in
the role of women in the basileia of God.
This aspect of mutuality is different from the inclusive aspect in some
respects. Clarke suggests a theology of inclusiveness in the greetings of Romans 16

Press of America, 1982), 152; Mary Grey, Redeeming the Dream: Feminism Redemption and
Christian Tradition (London: SPCK, 1989); see also K. Ehrensperger, That We may be Mutually
Encouraged: Feminism and the New Perspective in Pauline Studies (London: T& T Clark, 2004),
117-120.
77
A. Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pauls Rhetoric
(Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990), 9.
78
Wire, The Corinthian Women Prophets , 9
79
Cotter, Womens Authority Roles in Pauls churches, 372.
31

as expressed in the other letters of Paul (Gal 3:28; 1 Cor 12:13; Col 3:11; cf. also
Eph 2:13-16). The greetings as presented in Rom 16 transcend all ethnic, social and
gender barriers.
80
Inclusiveness appears to entail an egalitarian perspective - unity
and equality; however, I will argue that the model of mutuality entails inclusivism
but appreciates diversity and dynamism.
An extreme hierarchical model of the relationship between men and women is
described by Martin. In a chapter entitled Prophylactic Veils, Martin deals with the
issue of the veiling of women in public worship and the subordination of women.
The text seems to be condoning the subordination of women which is an apparent
contradiction to Pauls acknowledging the equality of men and women in the Lord.
Pauls citation of the baptismal formula that in Christ there is neither male nor
female (Gal 3:27-28), is acknowledged as a retention of the ancient notion that the
eschatological human being will be androgynous, having overcome the polarity of
the male/female dichotomy.
81
Martin states that Paul is not questioning the ideology
of hierarchy in the subordination of women while he tries to change the status of the
strong in relation to the weak in the rest of his letter to the Corinthians. He presents
evidence in connection with physiology that the bodies of women are weaker, more
vulnerable than men to desire, danger and pollution, and all the more dangerous to
the churchs body.
82
He suggests that veiling situates women in their proper position
in the ordered hierarchy of society, which also means that they are not intended to be
passive but must participate in their covering. The veil was the sign of womans own
authority as well as the sign of weakness and relative powerlessness. He argues that
Paul is more concerned about the body of Christ, the Christian community since he is

80
Clarke, Jew and Greek, 103-125.
81
D. B. Martin, The Corinthian Body (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1995), 229; for detailed
discussion see 229-249.
82
Martin, Corinthian Body, 233.
32

addressing communal problems, which affect each member of the community rather
than individualistic issues. Womens bodies are different from mens and are
inferior. After the resurrection, femininity will be swallowed up by masculinity. He
suggests that Paul cannot consider the female equal to male due to the hierarchy of
physiology.
83
I wonder whether Martin has done proper justice to the text and the
issues it apparently deals with, because he wishes to speculate about what Paul
thought he was doing. In order to carry out that speculation, he depends heavily on
materials drawn from ancient philosophical writings, medical discourse and Greco-
Roman culture, especially to reconstruct the ideological matrix of the body, in the
light of which he attempts to interpret the text. Martins attempt to present the
different ideological expressions of body in ancient times is interesting. But the
question remains as to what extent Paul was really influenced by the body ideology
of contemporary times. I think that too many details from the background could
eclipse the actual focus of the text; consequently there seems to be the danger of
reading into the text.
The hierarchy of spaces that controls the relationship between men and women
is the area of interest of Jorunn kland, Women in their Place: Paul and the
Corinthian Discourse and Sanctuary Place.
84
She analyses not only 1 Corinthians
but also a wider set of texts and argues for an ancient discourse of gender and
sanctuary space. Pauls exhortations concerning womens ritual roles and ritual
clothing in 1 Corinthians 11-14 structure and gender the Christian gathering as a
particular kind of space constructed through ritual, a sanctuary space.
85
The
concern is gender order of the ritual space in the community and not the veiling or

83
Martin, Corinthian Body, 248, 249.
84
J. kland, Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and Sanctuary
Space (JSNTSup, 269; London: T& T Clark International, 2004).
85
kland, Women in their Place, 1.
33

covering. The sphere is divided into the private sphere and the public sphere and
maintains that sanctuary space should not be treated as a subcategory of public space,
but as a special category.
86
The author holds the view that the gendered power
relations are maintained by hierarchical measures. Pauls task is about hierarchy,
creation and head coverings, hair style and nature in 11:2-16 and is that there should
be a clear difference between male and female, which in many of the passages is
organized hierarchically.
87
Women cannot teach and thus serve as mediators of logos
between God and men (14:36). Women can only be receivers of knowledge, which
makes sense within a hierarchical way of thinking in which women designate the
place at the bottom of the cosmological hierarchy and man is located higher up,
closer to the surface of the logos.
However, Watson argues that the appropriate criterion for judging the texts is
only through the reality of agape. He argues that agape is the inner Trinitarian love
opened up to human participation in Jesus and his Spirit. If agape is the beginning
and the end of Christian faith and living, then it is agape that must provide the final
criterion for Christian reflection on sexuality and gender.
88
Christian women and
men are not free from eros, but they practise a qualitatively different love, whose
origin and pattern is the divine love to which they are constantly redirected in
worship, preaching and sacrament, and in mutual fellowship with one another.
89

Paul envisions a community of togetherness, in which men and women
together participate in the grace of God, and in the fellowship of the Holy Spirit.
Watson refers to the belonging together of agape in Pauls picturing in 1 Cor 13.
He refers to patriarchy as the project of male self-definition apart from woman

86
kland, Women in their Place, 58.
87
See kland, Women in their Place, 137-143.
88
F. Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender: Towards a Pauline Sexual Ethic (Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 2000), ix.
89
Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender, ix.
34

and feminism as the other extreme of female self-definition apart from man and
that belonging together does not represent a via media between two equal and
opposite extremes, patriarchy and feminism.
90
Watsons view of belonging
togetherness and the fundamental character as love is suggestive for my project. But
I would develop this theme of belonging togetherness motivated by love, as it
implies Pauline love mutualism evident in the greetings and promotes community
relationships. As he bases his arguments on 1 Cor 13, I would rather base my
argument in Romans since the language of mutuality - one another - is repeated
more times in Romans, and Paul seems to make special efforts to commend this type
of relationship to the community of Romans.
I would like to explore in this research the possibilities of reconstruction of
Pauls gender vision within his communitarian ethic. What I would propose is a
balanced mutual ethic engendered by the basileia of God. In relation to this, I wish to
explore the possibilities of the impact of the greetings in Rom 16:1-16 on Pauls
diverse notions about the participation of women in ministry and how far the body
metaphor in Rom 12 and the up-building metaphor in Rom 14, 15 can influence
gender roles and relationships in ministry and leadership of the church.
1.6. Greetings as a Letter Form
Greeting is a distinct literary form found in the closing of a letter. The two
types of greetings Paul used in his letter closings are: a) informational (information
regarding greetings) and b) instructional (instruction to greet others). Among Pauline
greetings in letter closings, the greetings in Romans have special significance as they
have more instructional greetings. There are three types of greetings corresponding to
the three persons of the verb: the first person form, the second person form, and the

90
Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender, 5.
35

third person form. The first and third person greeting types can be put together under
the banner of informational greeting, which is information of greeting by the sender to
the addressee (a0spa/zomai; a0spa/zontai), whereas the second person type of
greeting can be called instructional greeting (a0spa/sasqe), that is, instruction to the
recipient to greet others. How does greeting individuals and groups operate to
influence the wider relational communitarian ethics? This question promotes the
starting point of this research. The impact of the greetings on Pauline exhortations
(12-15) and vice versa is a further new possibility of research.
Gamble in his work The Textual History of Romans, deals with Romans 16 and
the Pauline conclusions.
91
He highlights the commendatory character of the
descriptive phrases and that the imperative form of the greeting verb represents a
direct personal greeting of the writer and has the effect of Pauls own greetings to
those addressed in the letter.
92
He argues that the kiss greeting is a sign of fellowship
within the community, of the community with the Apostle, and indeed of one
community with others.
93

Weima in his work, Neglected Endings deals with the closing conventions in
Pauline letters: their forms and variations and as well their hermeneutical
significance.
94
The greetings have an important role in keeping and establishing
relationships. He suggests that the second person type of greeting involves the
congregation in passing on his greeting to others and expressed a stronger sense of
public commendation for those individuals being specifically greeted by the
apostle.
95
He suggests that the greeting in Romans is unique because it contains

91
Gamble, Textual History, 84-95.
92
93
94
J. A. D. Weima, Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings (JSNTSup,
101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994).
95
Weima, Neglected Endings, 108.
36

more greetings, because it has two greeting lists (16:3-16; 21-23), because of the
commendatory element found in the first list, and because the kiss greetings were
not an expression of farewell but a challenge by the apostle to the readers to let peace
and harmony characterize their relations with each other.
96

Mullins in the article entitled Greetings as a New Testament Form deals with
the elements of greeting, the types of greeting and the elaborating phrases.
According to Mullins, the second person type of greeting is an indirect salutation.
The writer of the letter indicates that the addressee is to greet someone for him. In
this way the writer of the letter becomes the principal and the addressee becomes his
agent in establishing a communication with a third party who is not intended to be
among the immediate readership of the letter.
97
It implies at least a fair cordiality
between the writer and the person greeted and the second person type of greeting
implies close relationships and friendly bonds.
98

Considering the previous arguments as the bases of my research, I would like
to develop their views on the second person greeting. What is the social dynamic in
the greeting with the verb a0spa/sasqe? Is a0spa/sasqe the same as that of Paul
greeting the third party or the second group greeting the third party? It is significant
that greetings in the second person imperative induce a web of relationships. For
example, when one person is being greeted, the whole group of the Roman
community joins in the greeting, and vice versa, thus creating a web of mutual
greetings. Therefore the Pauline purpose of greetings in the second person imperative
in Romans reaches its climax in Romans 16:16 where a0spa/sasqe a0llh/louv is
used. In this thesis, I will explore the social dynamics extended and enacted in these

96
97
T. Y. Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament Form JBL 87 (1968), 418-426, at 420.
98
Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament Form, 420.
37

greetings and the implication of the inclusion of women in the relationships of
honour and mutuality they create.
1.7. Mutualism in Pauls Communal Ethos
The theme of mutuality is not an isolated theme in the greetings (Rom 16) but
it is the continuation of Pauls exhortations throughout Romans, especially in Rom
12-15. The verbal and thematic links indicate Pauls desire to create love and
mutuality among the Roman believers. The terms love (eight times) and one
another (11 times) used in Romans (12-16) imply Pauline emphasis on mutuality.
99

The body metaphor and the term one another (Rom 12, 13) and Pauls exhortation
to welcome one another as Christ has welcomed (Rom 14, 15) clearly impact the
greetings (Rom 16).
It is likely that Paul assumes the paradigm of mutuality in Rom 12-15 as the
model to be employed when he urges Roman believers to greet certain men and
women and greet one another (Rom 16:1-16). The women described with their
significant roles indicate their leadership and Pauls rhetoric of greetings implies
their leadership within the structures of mutualism. Therefore it is important to look
at the Pauline ethos of mutuality in general as well as particular in Romans 12-15.
1.7.1. General Research
The initial basic research on the community aspect of Pauline theology was
done by R. Banks,
100
Pauls Idea of Community, where he deals with the community

99
Love (Rom 12:9; 13:10a, 10b; 14:15; 15:30; 13: 8a, b, 9) and one another (Rom 12:5, 10a, b, 16;
13:8; 14:13, 19; 15:5, 6, 14; 16:16).
100
R. Banks, Pauls Idea of Community: The Early House Churches in their Historic Setting and the
Church as the Body of Christ in the Pauline Corpus (Exeter: Paternoster Press, 1980). Other works on
the body are G. L. O. R. Yorke, The Church as the Body of Christ: A Re-examination (Lanham:
University Press of America, 1991); E. Best, One Body in Christ: A Study of the Relationship of the
Church to Christ in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul (London: SPCK, 1955); Y. S. Kim, Christs Body
in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2008).
38

as a family and community as a body, unity in diversity among the members, and
also the contribution of women in church, in various chapters.
Horrell suggests that the a0delfo/v language indicates mutual regard or other
regarding morality (Rom 14 and 1 Cor 8) in relation to a weaker sibling. He treats
solidarity, difference and other-regard: corporate solidarity does not then imply
uniformity, not even in the matters of ethical conviction, but implies precisely a
community within which differences can remain, because of the generous other-
regard which offers a welcome to the other.
101
Horrell suggests solidarity and
other-regard are the two metanorms of Pauline ethics in the model of Christ.
Mutual love filadelfi/a is the love of siblings, which could be expressed not only
in material sharing but also in hospitality and support to travellers at the local level as
well as throughout the Christian congregations.

Like Horrell, I wish to think through
Pauls communal ethos, by studying a range of texts, but I will focus on a feature he
has not fully explored, that is, relationships of mutuality in the Christian community.
1.7.2. Particular Research on Rom 12-15 in Relation to Community Building
A lot of research has been done on the question of division in the Roman
churches. The different views regarding Rom 12-15 are dealt with in this section, as
they are important to understand the model of mutuality in Pauls exhortations to the
Roman community.
Watson in his work Paul, Judaism and Gentiles: A New Perspective, and in
the article The Two Roman Congregations: Romans 14:1-15:13, assumes that there
were two groups, Jewish Christians and Gentile Christians, who were divided:
Pauls argument does not presuppose a single congregation in which members
disagree about law; it presupposes two congregations, separated by mutual hostility

101
D. G. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Pauls Ethics (London: T&
T Clark International, 2005), 199.
39

and suspicion over questions of the law, which he wishes to bring together into one
congregation.
102
He suggests that because Christ came to save both Jews and
Gentiles, Jews are exhorted to join with the Gentiles in common worship.
103

According to him, Rom 16 confirms the hypothesis about the purpose of Romans
derived from 14:1-15:13. The purpose of Romans is to encourage Jewish and Gentile
Christians in Rome, divided over the question of the law, to set aside their
differences and to worship together.
104
Although Watson assumes the two
congregations come together in worship, the Pauline idea of mutual acceptance
between the groups retaining their convictions needs to be developed further.
Barclays view is significant to my research as I reconstruct the theology of the
mutuality that entails otherness, interdependence, personhood, recovery of the
communitys collegiality and partnership. In his article Do we undermine the law?,
he suggests that the Gentiles and Jews are divided on the issue of Jewish law and
Paul exhorts them to welcome and tolerate fellow believers even if they do not
observe such rules. The mutual tolerance demanded by Paul in the Roman churches
requires that neither side allow their strongly-held convictions to determine the
contours of Christian commitment.
105
The mutual tolerance between the groups
enhances mutual welcoming.
Reasoner analyses the context of Rom 14-15 in the historical perspective that
the strong and the weak were divided in the matter of vegetarianism and that it fits
with first century Roman society. He analyses Pauls solution to the division in the
perspective of the whole letter of Romans and explains how the righteousness of God
given to believers brought through Christ is related to the believers obligations. He

102
F. Watson, The Two Roman Congregations, K. P. Donfried, (ed.), Romans Debate, 206.
103
Watson, The Two Roman Congregations, 206.
104
Watson, The Two Roman Congregations, 211.
105
J. M. G. Barclay, Do we undermine the Law?: A Study of Romans 14:1-15:6, in J. D. G. Dunn
(ed.), Paul and the Mosaic Law (Tbingen: Mohr, 1996), 287-308, at 302.
40

suggests, Obligation as a social force was pervasive throughout Roman society, and
Paul defines the obligation of the strong in a way they would not expect they are to
align their eating habits with the weak and support the weak (14:21; 15:1-2)
rather than force the weak to defer to their social status, as would be the norm in
Roman society.
106
What needs to be explored further is how such obligations relate
to the model of Christ and are taken up within an ethos of mutuality.
The idea that Romans 14:1-15:13 is a general paraenesis based on 1 Cor 8-10
dealing with a problem that could arise in any community, as Karris suggests,
107
is
an issue we will need to discuss. I will argue that Paul is addressing the actual
situation and that the exhortations are relevant to the Roman community.
In the social-scientific treatment of Romans by Esler in his work, Conflict
and Identity in Romans, he argues that Rom 12-15 outlines identity descriptors.
108

He suggests thematic links between the chapters of Romans that relate to the
attitudes and behaviour appropriate to the members of the Christ movement; that
these may be called norms in a social identity sense or, more particularly,
identity descriptors.
109
I wish to explore, however, the ways in which Paul urges
the Romans to let their identity be defined and developed in relationships of
mutuality.
The aspect of brotherly love is fundamental to mutual relations which
Aasgaard in his work My Beloved Brothers and Sisters deals with in regard to

106
M. Reasoner, The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1-15:13 in Context (SNTSMS 103;
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999), 232.
107
R. J. Karris, Romans 14:1-15:13 and the occasion of Romans in Donfried, (ed.) Romans Debate,
65-84. Karris analyses Rom 14:1-15:13 from a history of religions perspective, an exegetical
perspective and a paraenetic perspective and suggests, there is very little history of religions or
exegetical evidence that there were communities of the weak and the strong in Rome. Karris,
Romans 14:1-15:13, 84.
108
P. F. Esler, Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter (Minneapolis:
Fortress, 2003), 308. See also B. Winter, Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15, in P. Oakes
(ed.), Rome in the Bible and the Early Church (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002), 67-102.
109
Esler, Conflict and Identity, 339. He suggests links between 14:1-15:13 and 15:14-16:27 and 12-
13, with a theme of love.
41

Christian siblingship in Paul. In his discussion of Romans 12-15, he argues that in
Rom 12:10, Paul emphasizes mutual relations: Paul here aims at filadelfi/a as a
general and mutual obligation among Christians; the exhortation is directed towards
all indiscriminately.
110
He argues that Pauls strategies in Rom 14:1-15:13 link the
sibling metaphor very closely to the motif of non-judgment. A sibling should not be
passed judgment on, nor be despised (14:10) the appropriate way of judging a
sibling is to refrain from judging, and thus avoid destructive consequences, such as
the injury or the ultimate ruin of a co-Christian (14:15, 21).
111

The peculiarities of the Pauline exhortations (12-15) to the Roman
community have been studied from various angles in recent years. The other
regarding character, the mutual love and the differentiated motives of the groups
(the strong and the weak) have been the objects of research. However, the thread of
mutuality that underlies the chapters 12-15 and its impact on the greetings have yet
to receive the degree of attention that they deserve.
1.8. The Contribution and the Plan of Thesis
As we have seen a variety of research has been done on the greetings, the
roles of women (Rom 16) and the Pauline exhortations (Rom 12-15). However, the
major focus of this research is on womens leadership roles in the Pauline churches
and the leadership roles in the relationships of mutuality.
Assuming that Rom 16 is an integral part of the letter, the focus of this research
is the greetings in Rom 16:1-16 that indicate the leadership of women in the Pauline
churches. The instructional greetings indicate the persons who were to be greeted by
the recipients of the letter and the rhetoric of the passage, i.e. the way of presentation

110
R. Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!: Christian Siblingship in Paul (JSNTSup 265;
London: T& T Clark, 2004), 172.
111
Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters, 210.

42

of the persons to be greeted, implies their leadership roles. Their relationship to Paul
denotes their association with Paul and their partnership in Christian ministry. These
types of greetings have the function of increasing mutual relations not only between
Paul and the persons greeted but also between the persons who do the greeting and
those who are being greeted. Moreover, the mutuality in the greetings seems to be in
continuation with the Pauline theme of love and mutuality (in chapters 12 and 13)
and his dealing with a special issue of division in the Roman community (chapters 14
and 15) in order to welcome and receive one another. The analysis of the mutual
relations in Romans 12-15 could help us deduce a model of the Pauline ethos of
mutuality or Pauline love mutualism, because Paul describes genuine love as the
motivation for mutual relations (Rom 12:9). The extensive use of a0llh/louv
language in Romans 12-16 (fourteen times in Romans; out of which eleven are in
Romans 12-16) indicates Pauls emphasis on mutual relations among fellow
believers and his strategy in bringing it about, which holds the community together
in the midst of differences and diversities.
The method of study will be analytical, exegetical and rhetorical. The socio-
cultural context of the select passage will be analysed in order to deduce the
significance of womens ministry in the greetings of Paul. I will also engage in
theological analysis of Pauls notion of mutuality. A total view of Pauls
communitarian ethic will also be helpful in defining and reconstructing the mutuality
model. Based on this model, the thesis will follow the following progression.
The second chapter deals with the rhetorical analysis of greetings. In this
chapter the structure of conclusion in Hellenistic letters and Semitic letters in general
and the Pauline letters in particular are studied and the different types of greetings
43

are also addressed with a special focus on the peculiarities of the greetings in
Romans 16.
The third chapter deals with women in leadership in the Greco-Roman world.
This chapter focuses on women in the public sphere: law, politics, patronage and
heads of the household. Women in leadership in the religious sphere are also studied
with a special focus on Synagogues.
The fourth chapter is the hub of the thesis as it deals with the importance of
women in the Pauline mission. The women of Rom 16:1-16 are analysed in
comparison with women in the Roman Empire. The women specially mentioned
with their roles in the Pauline churches are discussed in order to place them in the
wider sphere of Pauline associates. The roles of women are studied with their roles as
stated by the descriptive phrases.
The fifth chapter focuses on the theological and ethical analysis of Rom 12-13
by discussing Pauls strategies to bring about mutuality. The body metaphor and the
practical implications in bringing about love and mutuality are the centre of attention.
The sixth chapter discusses his strategies in dealing with the contextual issue
of the weak and the strong in the Roman church (Rom 14-15). The solution to the
problems in the community is through mutual welcome and acceptance through the
self renunciation of ones own interests.
The seventh chapter is the concluding chapter, where a theology of love
mutualism is reconstructed. The model of mutuality in the greetings is deduced from
the exegetical analysis of Rom 12-15. The leadership of women within the structures
of mutualism implied in the greetings is a challenge to communitarian ethics as far as
Pauls social vision for Christian community is concerned.

44

Chapter 2
The Form of Greetings in the Romans Letter Closing
2.1. Introduction
The epistolary style of the Pauline letters is marked by the presence of four
major features/sections: 1) the Opening (sender, recipient, salutation); 2) the
Thanksgiving; 3) the Body ([including] transitional formulae, autobiographical
statements, concluding paraenesis, apostolic parousia); and 4) the Closing (peace
benediction, hortatory section, greeting, autograph, grace benediction).
1
Although
the first three sections are widely discussed by scholars, the final section has not been
given much attention. However, Weima properly situates its significance: A Pauline
letter closing is a carefully constructed unit, shaped and adapted in such a way as
to relate it directly to the major concerns of the letter as a whole, and so it provides
important clues to understanding the key issues addressed in the body of the letter.
2

Thus the closing section of Pauline letters is as important as the other epistolary
sections.
Greeting was a distinct literary form found in the closing of a letter.
3
Among
the Pauline greetings in the letter closings, the greetings in Romans have special
significance. The two types of greetings Paul used in his letter closings are:
Informational (information regarding greetings) and Instructional (instruction to
greet others).

1
Weima, Neglected Endings, 11. The relationship between rhetorical analysis and epistolary analysis
is much discussed by scholars. S. J. Stowers observes the need to compare Christian letters to the
whole range of letters and to approach them with a knowledge of ancient epistolary and rhetorical
theory [S. J. Stowers, Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity (Library of Early Christianity 265;
Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986), 23], whereas J. L. White notes, The use of rhetorical
techniques, especially in the theological body of St. Pauls letters, indicates that a knowledge of these
traditions is quite relevant to the study of early Christian letters. J. L. White, Light from Ancient
Letters (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986), 3.
2
3
Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament form, 418. He suggests, It forms a communication bridge
even where there is no specific merchandise to be exchanged and creates friendship.
45

The aim of this chapter is to analyse the form of greetings in the closing section
of Romans (16:1-16), since it is distinctive in comparison with the greetings
elsewhere in Pauline letter closings. The discussion proceeds against the backdrop of
the Hellenistic and the Semitic epistolary styles, which Paul might have been
acquainted with. This helps us to understand how far the greetings enhance mutual
relationship, which is one of the key aspects of the exhortations of Paul to the Roman
believers (Rom 12-15).
2.2. Letter Closing in the Hellenistic Letters
In order to understand the Pauline epistolary style, it is important to have a
glance at the epistolary theory and practice of the ancient world, to which he is
indebted. The evidence for this is supplied by the Greek Papyrus letters and literary
letters of antiquity.
4
A letter consists of mainly three parts: salutation, body, and
conclusion. Here, the epistolary conventions of the letter closing in the Hellenistic
letters are discussed with special focus on the greeting formulae and the descriptive
phrases.
In the Hellenistic letters, the final wish or the farewell wish appears as an
essential element.
5
Gamble notes, functionally, the final wish marks the definitive

4
Gamble, The Textual History, 57: The papyrus letters are described as non-literary because they
were not intended for publication [by contrast to] literary letters of antiquity, by which we may
refer either to letters transmitted through literary tradition or to letters composed in rather
sophisticated and artful style.
5
See for more discussion F. Ziemann, De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis Sollemnibus Quaestiones
Selectae (Berlin: Haas, 1912), 334-356; F. X. J. Exler, The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter of the
Epistolary Papyri (3
rd
c. B. C.- 3
rd
c. A. D.): A Study in Greek Epistolography (Washington: Ares
Publishers, 1923), 73-77, 103-107; H. Koskenniemi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des
Griechischen Briefes bis 400 n. Chr. (Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa, 1956), 151-154; Gamble,
Textual History, 58-59; J. L. White, Epistolary Formulas and Clichs in Greek Papyrus Letters, in
SBL Seminar Papers 2 (Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978), 289-319, 289-29; The Greek Documentary
Letter Tradition: Third Century BCE to Third Century CE, Semeia 22 (1981), 92-95; New Testament
Epistolary Literature in the framework of Ancient Epistolography, Aufstieg und Niedergang der
rmischen Welt, II, 25.2 (Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984), 1730-56, 1733-34; Light from Ancient Letters,
198-202. There were letters in which a farewell wish did not occur: business letters (agreements of
sale, loans, receipts, contracts, tenders written in letter form) and other types of letters. F. Francis
refers to these types of letters (private, public, secondary, early as well as late) that do not have
closing formulas but just stop; e.g. P. Tebt. 34; P. Tebt. 29; P. Tebt. 34; P. Oxy. 1071. See F. O.
46

conclusion of a letter, much in the manner of the concluding asseveration
(sincerely, etc.) and signature in modern usage.
6

The two basic forms of the farewell wish are tppooo (Be Strong!, farewell,
good-bye)
7
, or tuu_ti (May you prosper)
8
; tppooo occurs more than the other.
9

In the older Papyrus letters, the farewell wish is expressed in the verb itself: tppooo
and tuu_ti. But towards the end of the second century CE the more expansive form
tppoooi ot tu_ooi (I pray that you may be well) was used instead of the
simple form and it became the standard closing formula in the second and third
centuries, which is a combination of the farewell wish and a closing health wish.
10

The farewell wish has the function of bringing a letter to a definitive close and it has
the final position in a letter and can have elaborations.
11

Another epistolary convention, the health wish, expresses concern about the
welfare of the letter recipient by stating the letter writers own well-being.
12
The

Francis, The form and function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of James and 1 John, ZNW
61 (1970), 110-26, at 125.
6
7
The present passive imperative of povvui, which means to be strong, vigorous. Terms like
farewell and good bye are used at the conclusion of the letters, e.g. P. Princ. 72; P. Princ. 163; P.
Oxy. 2786.
8
The present active imperative of tuu_to; e.g. P. Tebt. 41, P. Tebt. 53. This form was expanded to
ituu_to; e.g. P. Oxy. 2342, P. Oxy. 2713.
9
Roller identifies the distinction in the two forms of the final wish that tppooo is used in letters to
peers or inferiors while tuu_ti occurs in letters to superiors, which seems to be less likely as Gamble
suggests that the distinction is not so obvious. Gamble agrees with Ziemann in this view. See O.
Roller, Das Formular der Paulinischen Briefe; Ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom Antiken Briefe, BWANT 4/6
(58) (Stuttgart: Kohlhammer, 1933), 481-82; F. Ziemann, De Epistularum Graecarum, 350-56;
10
11
The farewell wish is brief and has a fixed form but it has three types of elaboration which begin to
appear in the second century BCE: i) the recipient is referred to in a term of relationship or
endearment such as otit (brother), otp (father), |upit (lord) etc., and also denotes a
relationship beyond family boundary, in the vocative case, e.g. P. Ryl. 233, P. Oxy. 1296; ii) the
prepositional phrase such as to ov oov ovov (with all of yours), ouv oi ooi o oi
(with you all), or tv ovoi|qoio (in [your] all household); e.g. P. Giss. 24, P. Hamb. 54, P. Amh.
135; iii) an adverbial phrase such as io o iou iou (throughout [your] whole life), ti ov oti
_povov (for all time), ti o|pou oiovo (for many years), oiioi _po voi (for many
years). Weima, Neglected Endings, 32.
12
See for detailed description, Ziemann, De Epistularum Graecarum, 302-325; Exler, Ancient Greek
Letter, 107-111; Koskenneimi, Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechichen Briefes, 130-39; cf.
Roller, Das Formular, 62-65; Gamble, Textual History, 60-61; White, Epistolary Formulas and
Clichs, 295-99; Weima, Neglected Endings, 34-39.
47

basic form of the health wish varies with historical periods, as is evident in the Greek
papyrus letters, unlike the ancient Latin letters, where the formula valetudinis has a
fixed form but stands in different locations: the opening section, the closing section,
or both.
13
However, the Greek health wish has a fixed basic form depending on its
position, whether it is used in the opening section or the closing section. Exler notes
the form of the health wish in a letter opening has the basic structure: ti tppoooi,
tu ov t_oi tppoto (uyioivotv) |oi qti (ouoi) [If you are well, it would
be good. We too are well].
14
The health wish in the closing section of the letter
comes before the farewell wish and has the basic form: titiou otouou iv
uyioivq (Take care of yourself in order that you may be healthy), which has no
reference to the writers own well-being.
15

The other parts of the letter closings are greetings (which will be dealt with as a
separate section as it is the focus of this chapter), the concluding autograph, date,
illiteracy formula
16
and postscript. A concluding autograph was the closing remarks
of the letter sender in his or her own hand, when a secretary was employed to assist
in the writing of letters. The autograph has the effect of the writer writing the letter in

13
Weima, Neglected Endings, 35. Exler suggests that the health wish comes in the body of the
Hellenistic letter, which is less likely because the health wish has a role of maintaining relationships
between the persons involved and the frequent occurrence of the health wish in the letter closings
indicate the improbability of its position in the body of the letter. See Exler, Ancient Greek Letter,
101-113; contra Weima, Neglected Endings, 34-35.
14
The basic form varies: the common changes are |oiotu, tppoto uyioivotv, ouoi
qti and the additions are po tv ovov or po ov oiov, o ioio or oiio, ouiooi or
tio, |oo ioyov, |oo vou v or |oo yvoqv. The opening health wish was a separate formula
and comes after the opening greeting from the third century BCE to the middle of the second century
BCE, e.g. PSI 331; PSI 364; UPZ 64; from the mid second century BCE to the early second century
CE, the health wish began to be combined with the opening greeting, e.g. P. Tebt. 12; P. Oxy. 2979;
BGU 1204; in the latter part of the second century CE and the third century CE the health wish
appears as a separate formula. See Weima, Neglected Endings, 35, 36; Exler, Ancient Greek Letter,
103-105.
15
There are variations although not in an extensive manner as in the opening health wish, e.g. P. Mert.
62; P. Petr. 2; P. Oslo. 47. The health wish in the closing of the letter disappears by the first century
CE and the beginning of the second, probably due to the combined form of the health wish and the
farewell wish: tppoooi ot tu_ooi (I pray that you may be well). See Weima, Neglected Endings,
38.
16
The illiteracy formula is a brief note at the end of the letter showing that a secretary had written the
document since the person who is actually sending the letter is illiterate. See Weima, Neglected
Endings, 50; Exler, Form of the Ancient Greek Letter, 124-127.
48

his or her own hand (I have written in my own hand). The dating formula occurs in
most official or business letters, and (if it occurs) it occupies the final position in the
closing section of the letter, after the farewell wish. A postscript includes final
information, added to the end, that was not included earlier.
It is rare that the letters have all the elements together in the closing section,
since it depends on the particular situation and style of the letter.
2.2.1. Greetings
Greeting is the third epistolary convention commonly found in the ancient
Hellenistic letters. Although concluding greetings are not frequently present in the
letters before the first Christian century CE, greetings attained a fixed position at the
close of a letter from the first century onwards. The greeting of the writer to the
addressee was located at the beginning of the letter (_oiptiv) and the closing greeting
can be considered as a secondary greeting. The purpose of both opening and closing
greetings was to maintain relationships. As Weima suggests, the greetings was one of
the key means of expressing philophronesis that is, the friendly relationship that
existed between the sender of the letter and its recipient.
17
The concluding greetings
are directed to the friends or family members of the addressee.
The basic form of the concluding greetings consists of the verb of greeting and
the object and both of them can be subjected to various modifications. The verb
commonly used for expressing greetings in letter closings is oootooi
18
(to
greet, welcome, salute). Hpoooyoptutiv
19
(to address, call, by name) and

17
18
oootooi means to effect ooooo, mostly to proffer the greeting which is customary on
entering a house or meeting someone on the street or parting. An ooooo in a letter is a greeting
from a distance, which is a substitute for a greeting and embrace in personal encounter. It expresses
sincere attachment in separation and thus serves to strengthen personal fellowship. K. H. Windisch,
oooooi TDNT 1, 496-502, at 496.
19
E.g. P. Geiss. 12; P. Mert. 63; P. Tebt. 58, 768; P. Oslo. 153; P. Oxy. 293, 294, 743.
49

tio|otiooi (to look after, watch over)
20
are also used infrequently. The writer
wants the addressee to convey the greetings to others when the verb is presented
imperatively (oooou, oooooi).
21

2.2.1.1. Types of Greetings
There are three types of greetings corresponding to the three persons of the
verb: the first person form, the second person form, and the third person form.
22
The
first and third person greeting types can be put together under the banner of
informational greeting, which is an information of greeting by the sender to the
addressee, whereas the second person type of greeting can be called instructional
greeting, that is, instruction to the recipient to greet others.
1. The first person form oooooi is very rarely used in the final greetings in
the first century CE and began to be used in the final greetings in the second century
CE.
23
In the first person form of greeting, the writer of the letter greets directly, and it
is the most direct and personal form of the greeting formulae; e.g. P. Wash 30:
oooooi ot otit Nti|qo (I greet you, brother Neicetes).
24
The first person
type of greeting usually occurs in the opening (_oiptiv) and it emphasizes the
friendly relationship between the person who does the greeting and the persons
greeted. If the first person greeting is directed to someone other than the person in the
opening, it shows that the writer wants to communicate with more persons than in the

20
The plain meaning of the verb is not related to greeting. However, it is used as a technical term for
greeting which means send regards to; e.g. P. Mert. 63; P. Oslo. 153. John White argues that the
indicative form of the verb has this meaning while the imperative does not have the same meaning;
Weima disagrees by suggesting that the indicative as well as the imperative of the verb have the same
meaning. White, Epistolary Formulas and Clichs, 298-99; White, Light from Ancient Letters, 202,
fn. 63. Weima, Neglected Endings, 40.
21
22
Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament Form, 418; Weima, Neglected Endings, 40; Koskenniemi,
Des griechischen Briefes, 148-51. Koskenniemi describes the types in a different way: a) the writer
greets the addressee; 2) the writer greets others through the addressee; and 3) the writer conveys
greetings from another party to the recipient.
23
24
50

previous list.
25
As Mullins suggests, one of the important aspects of the first person
type of greeting is its potential for spelling out the intended readership of the letter.
26

2. In the second person form of greeting, the writer requires the addressee to
convey the greetings to someone on his behalf: e.g. P. Tebt. 412: oooou qv
ttpo oou |oi ov otpo oou (Greet your mother and your father). Thus the
addressee becomes the agent of communication between the sender and the third
party and the form of the greeting can be either the present imperative oooou, or
the aorist imperative oooooi. The second person greetings occur in the final
section of the letter unlike the first person greeting, which is usually located in the
letter opening. It is less personal than the first person greeting.
27

On the one hand, this type of greeting implies a closer relationship between the
writer of the letter and the addressee than between the writer and the person greeted,
and on the other, it also suggests a closer relationship between the addressee and the
person greeted than between the writer and the person greeted. Thus the appearance
of a second person type of greeting indicates a series of close and friendly bonds.
Mullins suggests that the degrees of relationships can be determined not only by the
greeting formula but also by the epistolary situation; the second person type of
greetings is significant since it informs the relationships which exist beyond the
scope of the letter rather than the relationships indicated in the letter.
28

3. In the third person form of greeting, the letter writer becomes an agent
through whom a third party greets the addressee or even some fourth party: e.g.

25
See e.g. BGU 276; P. Fay. 116; P. Mert. 81, 82, 85; P. Oxy. 123, 1067, 1494; P. Princ. 70; P. Tebt.
415.
26
Mullins, Greeting as a Letter Form, 420.
27
See e.g., BGU 632; P. Fay. 112, 123; P. Mert. 22, 81, 82; P. Oslo. 47, 48, 49, 150, 161; P. Oxy.
114, 295, 300, 1061, 1489; P. Princ. 68, 70; P. Ryl. 230, 231; P. Tebt. 412.
28
Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament Form , 420, 421.
51

P. Mich. 464: oooovoi ot oou o oiio (Your children greet you).
29
The
position of third person greetings is in the letter closing rather than in the opening,
similar to that of the second person greetings,
30
which is the least personal in form
compared to the other types and gives information about the relationship existing
beyond that of the letter writer and the addressee.
2.2.1.2. Elements of Greetings
The three basic elements in the secondary (closing) greetings are: 1) the
greeting verb; 2) the sender of greeting; 3) the recipient of greeting. There is another
optional element in secondary greetings which is an elaborating phrase. The first three
elements are essential and can vary in different types of greeting. In the first person
and second person types of greetings, the verb alone functions as the first and second
elements. An example of each type is as follows:
31

P. Herm. 14: ooooto Lioo|opov |oi Euooiovo |oi ou opo ooi
oio
P. Oxy. 1016: oooou ou oou ovo
The person who is greeting needs to be expressed in the third-person type, for
example,
P. Iand. 9: oootoi uo ovo |o ovoo /otivo
2.2.1.3. Elaborating/Descriptive Phrases
In the Hellenistic letters, the elaborating phrases used in the closing greetings
indicate some of the specific aspects of the writer-reader relationships. They give
emphasis to some aspect of greeting, which usually serves to modify or to call
particular attention to one of the basic elements of greeting such as the greeting verb,

29
Weima, Neglected Endings, 42. The third person indicative singular or plural is used.
30
For example, P. Mert. 22, 81, 82, 83; P. Oxy. 2981, 2982, 3312; P. Princ. 70.
31
The examples are given by Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament Form, 419.
52

the person who is to do the greeting, or the person who is being greeted.
32
The
phrases used are different according to their functions.
a) One type of phrase is used to strengthen the relationships indicated by the
basic elements and they are called modifiers. The verb of greeting is sometimes
elaborated by the modifier oiio and this can be used with any of the three types of
greeting, such as the first person type, the second person type and the third person
type of greeting (oootooi oiio, to greet warmly). Here the writer seeks to
convey to the reader the thought that his greeting is something special, and that it is
not just a conventional gesture.
33
The use of oiio, is the most general method of
modifying the effect of the verb and it is intended to intensify the warmth of the
greeting. At other times, the entire clause is introduced with po ovov or po
ov oiov (above all, by all means).
b) Another elaborating phrase is an interjection, which is a fairly irrelevant
comment thrown in as part of the greeting; a simple pious wish for good luck of one
sort or another for the person greeted or a curse against a mutual enemy.
34
It can also
take the form of telling something about the greeter, which is a personality
signature, as Mullins suggests.
35

c) The third kind of elaborating phrase is the personal description, which is a
phrase used to describe the person being greeted. The phrases show the special
relationship between the writer and person greeted or it includes a word of
endearment. The objects of greetings are variously designated by proper names, but
sometimes with a personal description which states the form of relationship, e.g. P.

32
33
34
35
53

Oxy. 533, oooooot 2oiov qv uyotpo ou |oi Hpo_itiqv |oi Aiovo
ou uiou ou.
In some cases, the objects of greetings are not named but appear in a general
collective designation: e.g. ovo ou tv oi|o (tvoi|ou), all among your
household, your whole family. But considering the fact that this was too
impersonal a way of greeting friends some writers added a personalizing phrase,
|o ovoo which means by name e.g. P. Mich. 206, oooou ou oou
ovo |o ovoo. oooovoi ot |oi ou oou ovo oi toi ovt
|o ovoo.
d) The fourth type is the identifying phrase. The role of the identifying phrase
is to characterize the person who does the greeting, which can occur in a first person
or in a third person type of greeting. An example of this rare type of elaborating
phrase is P. Oxy. 1067, |oyo Aitovpo o oqp uov oooooi uo
oiio.
It is to be noted that though Paul adapted the Hellenistic epistolary models for
Christian purposes, he expressed a sense of freedom in literary matters. He was not
tied to any fixed models and he often combined non-Jewish Hellenistic customs with
Hellenistic Jewish ones.
36
That Paul envisioned a worship setting as he composed his
letters is evident in the manner in which he altered customary conventions and/or by
the way in which he used Christian formularies as a substitute for set epistolary
phrases.
37

36
P. T. OBrien, Letters, Letter Forms, DPL, 550-553, at 551; see also R. W. Funk, Language,
Hermeneutic, and Word of God: The Problem of Language in the New Testament and Contemporary
Theology (New York: Harper & Row, 1966), 270. For more discussion see Weima, Neglected Endings,
57-76.
37
J. L. White, Saint Paul and the Apostolic Letter Tradition, CBQ 45 (1983), 433-444, at 437.
54

2.3. Letter closing in the Semitic Letters
It is also important to have a look at the closing conventions of ancient Semitic
letters as Paul himself claims a Jewish and Pharisaic background (Rom 11:1; 2 Cor
11:22; Phil 3:5-6; Gal 1:13-14; 1 Cor 15:9). The Semitic letters fall under two
categories, primary and secondary. The primary letters have two basic epistolary
conventions: farewell wish shalom (peace, health, and well-being) which has the
double function of saying farewell and health wish, and secondly, signature (only rare
occurrence of a postscript). Weima suggests that the Semitic letters differ from the
Hellenistic letters which less commonly have a signature.
38
He also notes that Paul
might have been influenced by Semitic signature practice as he has used in his writing
I, Paul, write this in my own hand (Phlm 19; 1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17;
Col 4:18). The secondary (literary) letters have epistolary conventions such as a
farewell wish (Ep. Arist. 33; 2 Apoc. Bar. 86.1; Josephus, Life 365), a date (2 Macc
11.33), a health wish (opening health wish: e.g. Ep. Arist. 35; 2 Macc. 1.10; 2 Macc
11.28; closing health wish; e.g. Josephus Ant. 17. 135).
39

Compared to the Hellenistic letter closing, the Semitic letter closings are
shorter and less elaborate, and few letters are found with links between the body and
closing sections points to some general comments. Weima notes, As we found with
respect to ancient Hellenistic letters, there does not appear among the Semitic letters
to be any deliberate and careful adaptation of closings so that they summarize and
echo key issues previously taken up in their respective bodies. However, he also
notes that a few examples with links between Semitic letter closings and the body of
the letter indicate the writers intention of writing appropriate endings.
40

38
Weima, Neglected Endings, 67. For more discussion see pages 57-76.
39
Weima, Neglected Endings, 74-75.
40
Weima, Neglected Endings, 76. Doty suggests that there are no direct lines of borrowing by Paul
from Jewish epistolary materials in terms of form and structure. W. G. Doty, Letters in Primitive
55

2.4. Letter Closing in the Pauline Letters
We have discussed the epistolary forms of the ancient Hellenistic letters
and the Semitic letters to comprehend how far Pauls epistolary writings have
been influenced by these forms. Although echoes of Hellenistic influence can
be seen to a greater extent and Semitic influence to a lesser extent, Weima
suggests from Pauls creation of the forms unparalleled in ancient letters
41
that
Pauline letter closings relate to the specific epistolary situations. As we deal with
the closing conventions of the Pauline letters, we will look into the different
forms used by Paul in his letters especially in the letter to the Romans. The
conclusion of Pauls letters consists of a grace benediction, the wish of peace, the
greetings, the greeting with a holy kiss, the autographic conclusion and some
other elements.
The grace benediction functions as a final wish and is seen in the ultimate
position, the exception of which can be found in 1 Corinthians 16:23, where Paul
conveys his love to be with them by a wish. The grace benediction has three
components such as the wish, the divine source and the recipient. The wish includes
grace (_opi) in the disputed as well as the undisputed letters; 2 Cor 13:13 has
additional words such as love and fellowship. The divine source ou |upiou Iqoou
Xpioou of [our]Lord Jesus [Christ] is present in all undisputed letters of Paul but
absent in disputed letters. The genitive phrase of Christ Jesus depicts that Christ
Jesus is the source of grace. The variation can be found in 2 Cor 13:13 where to
and vtuo are used. The recipient is introduced with to (with) and followed by
uov (e.g. Rom 16:20b; 1 Cor 16:23; 2 Cor 13:13; Gal 6:18; Phil 4:23; 1 Thess 5:28;

Christianity (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973), 22. Fitzmyer finds some parallels between New Testament
epistolography and Aramaic letters. See J. A. Fitzmyer, Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography,
JBL 93 (1974), 201-225, at 220.
41
56

2 Thess 3:18; Phlm 25); the divine source is absent in disputed letters e.g. Eph 6:24;
Col 4:18b; 1 Tim 6:21b; 2 Tim 4:22b; Tit 3:15b.
42
The variations are ou
vtuoo uov and ovov uov (which has an emphatic function). The grace
benedictions link to the early Christian liturgy can be seen in 1 Cor 16:20-23, where
Paul deviates from the simple farewell wish to the grace benediction. As Weima
suggests the reasons for the variations in Paul are: a) he may be concerned about the
spiritual welfare of the readers; b) his desire to give a Christological focus; c) to
build inclusio with the opening salutation, which has a grace factor and d) also due
to his theological, liturgical and pastoral interests.
43

The wish of peace appears in the epistolary conclusions and holds an earlier
position, which occurs in all undisputed letters except 1 Corinthians and Philemon.
The elements of the peace benediction are the introductory element (t, |oi) and the
divine source (Oto). In the grace benediction, grace is given by Christ and here,
peace by God. The peace wish has variations in 1 Cor 13:11, where peace and love
are used; 2 Thess 3:16 may the God of peace himself give you peace at all times and
all ways; 1 Thess 5:23-24 may the God of peace himself sanctify you wholly till
the coming of Christ; while peace is the basic form of the wish, and the recipient
(to + uov).
44
The letter of Romans has two peace benedictions (15:33; 16:20a)
with some special features. The origin of the peace benediction can be mapped out
from the Aaronic blessing (Num 6:24-26). In the Semitic letters the farewell wish
shalom connotes the wish for peace since it has the meaning of total well-being. In
the Pauline letters the peace benediction comes at the beginning of the letter closing
and it has the function of expressing concern for the spiritual welfare of the readers.

42
See Weima, Neglected Endings, 78-87.
43
44
There are other benedictions in Pauline letters: Rom 15:5-6; 15:13; 1 Thess 3:12-13;
2 Thess 2:16-17; 2 Thess 3:5.
57

The greetings are always placed between the peace-wish and the grace benediction if
both are present in the letter. Greetings with a kiss come along with other greetings,
which will be discussed in the next section.
The other element, the autograph statement q tq _tipi (Houiou) in/with my
own hand [of Paul] appears in five (three undisputed and two disputed) letters of Paul
(1 Cor 16:21; Gal 6:11; 2 Thess 3:17; Phlm 19; cf. Col 4:18a).
45
The autograph
formula indicates that Paul used a secretary to write the letter and his personal
writing is given as a signature to the letters.
Doxology is another important element in the letter closing. Doxology differs
from benediction: whereas the benediction is an invocation to God to bestow a
blessing on some person(s), the doxology is an expression of praise to God.
46
The
elements of doxology are: the object of praise (God in the undisputed letters); the
element of praise (glory); the signal of time and the affirmative response. The origin
of the doxology is drawn from Jewish worship, which has the same four elements as
the New Testament doxologies. Doxology functions as a conclusion of the arguments
and exhortations in a letter. Paul might have been influenced by the Semitic letters.
Concluding hortatory remarks point to the main issues of the respective letters
and can be found in the closings of the undisputed Pauline letters. They are absent in
2 Thessalonians. The other elements found are the joy expression, the letter of
recommendation and the postscript.
The pattern of the major components of the conclusion can be represented as
hortatory remarks, wish of peace, greetings, greetings with kiss, and grace
benediction. According to Gamble, whether these elements are present or absent, or

45
Only Galatians and Philemons autographic statement use the verb typoo, while others lack a
main verb. The autograph statement is found with the greeting formula (three occurrences: 1 Cor
16:21; 2 Thess 3:17; Col 4:18a).
46
Weima, Neglected Endings, 135,136.
58

with addition of other items, the sequence is never violated.
47
In the components and
structure, the epistolary conclusions suggest regularity in their pattern. But no two
conclusions are the same in all their features.
2.4.1. Form of Greetings in the Pauline Letters
The Pauline epistolary conclusion is marked by the greetings to the addressees.
These can be found in all Pauline undisputed letters except Galatians.
48
Although
there are similarities between the Pauline greeting formula and the Hellenistic
greeting formula, there is a considerable diversity of form and scope within the
Pauline greetings. In the Pauline letters as well as the Hellenistic letters, oootooi
with the object is the basic formula of greeting; the three types of greetings as first,
second and third person types are used, while the second person instructional type is
more common.
2.4.1.1. Informational Greetings
The first person type and the third person type come under this group as they
contain information about the greetings.
1. First Person type of Greeting: The first person type of greeting oooooi
(I greet) is found only in Romans 16:22. Tertius, the apostles secretary, greets the
readers of the letter: oooooi uo tyo 1tpio o ypoo qv tiooiqv tv
|upio. In the Hellenistic letters also, the use of the first person greeting formula is
restricted. The personal greeting usually appears in the opening salutation (_opi
uiv |oi tipqvq) and because of this reason it may not appear in the closing greeting.

47
48
The absence of any greetings in the epistle to the Galatians was interpreted as due to the rebuking
features found in the Galatians letter or that Galatians was meant to be a circular letter. Weima
suggests that the omission may be due to the strained relations that existed between Paul and his
Galatian converts. Among the disputed letters of Paul, the greeting is missing only in Ephesians and
1 Timothy. In the other New Testament letters, the greeting occurs in Heb 13:24 (2 times), 1 Pet 5:13-
14; 2 Jn 13 and 3 Jn 15 (2 times). Weima, Neglected Endings, 115.
59

There is a distinctive formula o ooooo q tq _tipi Houiou (The
greeting [is written] with my own hand:1 Cor 16:21; 2 Thess 3:17; Col 4:18) that
belongs to this greeting type. This type of greeting seems to have no parallels in the
other letters of Pauls day.
49
Although ooooo can be taken as the grace
benediction, the grace benediction is a wish of grace and not a word of greeting. So
Weima suggests that o ooooo q tq _tipi Houiou is a genuine greeting of
Paul and is a Pauline type of first person greeting.
50

2. Third Person Type of Greeting: In the third person type of greeting, Paul
conveys the greetings of others to the people, who are the recipients of the letter. The
writer, Paul, serves as an agent in sending greetings on behalf of people who are with
him. The present indicative singular oootoi or plural oooovoi is used in the
third person type of greetings. The greetings are sent on behalf of specific
individuals (Rom 16:21, 23:1 Cor 16:19b; Phlm 23), of well-defined groups (1 Cor
16:19a; Phil 4:22), or of very general groups (1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12b; Phil
4:21).
51
Paul also sends greetings on behalf of the church in Asia (1Cor 16:19a) or
for all the saints (2 Cor 13:12b) or for all the churches of Christ (Rom 16:16b),
which suggests that Paul is more concerned about the unity and fellowship of the
church, and his own apostolic status, while he communicates greetings on behalf of
the churches.
2.4.1.2. Instructional greetings
Second Person Type of Greetings: In the second person type of greetings,
Paul instructs the readers or the recipients of the letter to greet others. Thus the
recipients of the letter are greeting others as instructed by the writer of the letter.
Although there is an implicit idea that they are acting as an agent of the sender of the

49
50
51
60

letter, the explicit action is that they are greeting others as if they are greeting
themselves and not as per the instruction of Paul.
It can be inferred from this type of greeting that the persons who are greeted
likewise are not a part of the congregation to whom the letter was addressed. So it
may be assumed that one of the house churches at Rome was the actual recipient of
Pauls letter and Paul authorizes them to pass on his personal greetings to specific
persons who belonged to other house churches in the capital city.
52
However,
Gamble suggests that even though the recipients of the letter can be seen as the
agents of greetings, the recipients of the greetings are among the circle of readers.
53

The senders greetings conveyed by the addressees to the third party is equal to
the sender himself greeting them. The second person imperative form of the greeting
verb functions as a surrogate for the first person indicative form, and so represents a
direct personal greeting of the writer himself to the addressees.
54
It seems that the
involvement of the congregation in passing on his greetings to others expressed a
stronger sense of public commendation for those individuals being specifically
greeted by the apostle.
55

However, the second person greeting indicates Pauline instruction as you
greet, which is important to this research on mutuality in Romans: Paul (A) instructs
readers (B) you to greet others (C). It is not merely passing on of his own greetings
but group B greets group C as if they themselves are greeting the third party;
oooooot - you (plural) greet.

52
Weima, Neglected Endings, 108. Weima refers to C.-H. Kim, The Form and Structure of the
Familiar Greek Letter of Recommendation (SBLDS 4; Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1972), 139-140.
53
Gamble, Textual History, 92, 93.
54
Gamble, Textual History, 93; Mullins, Greeting, 418. Mullins suggests that the second person
imperative form shows that the recipients of the greetings stand outside the immediate readership of
the letter. But Gamble argues that this may be true for Hellenistic private letters but does not seem
good for Pauline letters or for Romans 16 and therefore the recipients of the second person greetings
in Romans 16 are members of the community. See previous note.
55
61

The plural aorist imperative oooooot
56
occurs twenty times in the
undisputed letters, and is the most frequent of the greeting types, while the third
person greeting form occurs only ten times. It is also interesting to note that apart
from Romans, the second person greeting type occurs only four times and of these
three (1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; and 1 Thess 5:26) belong to the exhortation of the
holy kiss. Thus the only second person type of greeting found outside Romans is in
Phil 4:21.
2.4.1.3. Elements of Greeting
The closing greetings of the Pauline letters contain the same three elements as
that of the Greco-Roman letters. They are 1) the greeting verb oooooot; 2) the
giver of the greeting; and 3) the recipient of the greeting. Pauls use of the elements
is the same in all the greetings. The elaborating phrases are the optional element of
the greetings.
2.4.1.4. Elaborating/Descriptive Phrases
The elaborating phrases which are most abundant in the Pauline letters are
those with the personal description phrases although they are least abundant in the
papyri.
57
Paul uses a number of additions or elaborating phrases to his greetings in
order to modify or stress the three elements in the closing section such as the greeting
verb, the person who greets and the person being greeted, as in the Hellenistic letters.
a) The first element of the greeting formula is given more weight by the
addition of the adverb oiio in 1 Cor 16:19b, which is added in the Hellenistic
letters to give a more personal tone.
58
Another type of elaboration to the first element

56
The verb oooooot is used in the disputed Pauline letters such as Col 4:15; 2 Tim 4:19; Tit 3:15b.
In the other letters of the New Testament, the second person type occurs in 1 Pet 5:14 and 3 Jn 15b,
Heb 13:24a.
57
Mullins, Greeting as a New Testament Form, 424. The interjection, which can be seen in the
Hellenistic letters, does not appear at all in Pauline Letters.
58
62

of the greeting formula is in the phrases such as tv |upio (in the Lord) and tv
Xpioo (in Christ); e.g. (1 Cor 16:19b) oootoi uo tv |upio and (Phil 4:21)
oooooot tv Xpioo Iqoou, which serve to modify the verb, with the verb
being christianized by the additions.
59

b) The second element of the greeting formula, the giver of the greeting is also
elaborated, by using identification phrases. Identification phrases used can be found
in Rom 16:21, 22; 23a, 23b; Phlm 23-24; Phil 4:22, Col 4:10-12 (cf. 1 Pet 5:13).
Only one of the identification phrases is used with a first-person type of greeting, I,
Tertius, who wrote the letter, greet you (Rom 16:22). All the rest are in the third-
person type of greetings. Rom 16:23a is a typical example of this type, Gaius, who
is the host to me and to the whole church, greets you. In these cases, the descriptive
phrases are used with the pattern of a nominative in apposition to the persons name
followed by the first person personal pronoun in the genitive, as o ouvtpyo ou
(my fellow worker); oi ouyytvti ou (my kinsmen), which points to the nature
of the relationship that exists between the sender of the greeting and Paul.
c) The descriptive phrases are also used with the third element of greeting, the
recipient. The phrases are used to identify by name and/or personal description those
who are being greeted, for example, Rom 16:5b, 11b, 12a, 12b. Apart from Romans,
this occurs only once, in Col 4:15 ( Aoooot ou tv /ooi|tio otiou |oi
Nuov ). Nympha, particularly mentioned in the greeting, is the object of
greeting. It is also notable that the person being greeted is signified by means of
appositive noun or adjective followed by first person personal pronoun in the
genitive.
60
The phrases used to describe the recipient have different purposes.

59
60
63

First, the descriptive phrases of the recipient express a strong commendation,
e.g. ov oyoqov ou (my beloved: Rom 16:5b, 8, 9, 12b); ov o|iov tv
Xpioo (esteemed in Christ: Rom 16:10a); ov t|it|ov tv |upio (chosen in the
Lord: Rom 16:13).
Second, the addition of the phrases such as tv |upio or tv Xpioo ( Iqoou)
refers to the recipient
61
(Greet so and so in the Lord), although it modifies the verb
(Greet in the Lord /Christ), e.g. 1 Cor 16:19b and Phil 4:21. This type of descriptive
phrase gives a strong element of commendation to the recipient as Paul is
acknowledging that person in relation to the Lord.
62

Third, relative clauses are also used with these phrases such as oiivt utp
q u_q ou ov touov po_qiov utq|ov (who risked their necks for my
life: Rom 16:4a); oi ou| tyo ovo tu_opioo oiio |oi oooi oi t||iqoioi
ov tvov (to whom not only I but also all churches of the Gentiles give thanks
Rom 16:4b); o toiv oop_q q Aoio ti Xpioov (who is the first convert
of Asia for Christ: Rom 16:5b). The role of these phrases may be recognition of
their achievement or a commendation rather than to introduce the person being
greeted to the addressees since those persons would have been famous in the
Christian community.
2.5. The Romans Letter Closing
The Romans letter closing (Rom 15:33-16:27) has special features compared
to the other letter closings. It is the longest letter closing and it includes two peace
benedictions (15:33; 16:20a), a letter of recommendation (16:1-2), the two greeting
lists (16:3-16, 21-23), an hortatory section (16:17-20) and a doxology (16:25-27).

61
The prepositional phrase occurs 11 times in relation to the recipient of the greeting: Rom 16:3, 5b,
7, 8, 9, 10a, 11b, 12a, 12b, 13; Phil 4:21a.
62
64

The first greeting list is unique due to its length and the number of people being
greeted with descriptive phrases concluding with the greeting with a holy kiss (v.16a)
and the greetings to the Romans from all the churches of Christ (v.16b). It is
followed by an hortatory section that includes the paraenesis (v.17-18; 19b), the joy
expression (v.19a) and the peace benediction (v.20a). The hortatory section is
followed by the grace benediction (16:20b), which is the final section of Pauls other
letters. But here it is followed by the second list of greetings, where Paul passes on
his greetings from his co-workers including his amanuensis (Rom 16:21-23). The
Romans letter closing ends with a long doxology (16:25-27). The following is the
outline:
15:33 Peace Benediction
16:1-2 Letter of Recommendation
16:3-16 First Greeting List
vv. 3-15 Second Person Greetings
v. 16a Greeting with a holy kiss
v. 16b Third Person Greeting
16: 17-20a Hortatory Section (Autograph)
vv. 17-18 opo|oito unit
v. 19a Joy expression
v. 19b General paraenetic command
v. 20a Peace Benediction
16:20b Grace Benediction
16:21-23 Second Greeting List
16:25-27 Doxology
65

The closing conventions in the Romans letter closing are briefly discussed in
the following section.
It is a distinctive feature in Romans that it has two peace benedictions,
compared to the other letters of Paul. The peace benediction in 15:33 has the
adjective ovov (all) expressing the range of the wish, and it reflects the practice
of papyrus letters of the day. Here in Romans, it seems that Paul is intending to
bring about peace for all in the collective sense because of his dealing with the
problems and divisions in the previous chapters, thereby bringing in peace between
the strong and the weak in the Roman church. Weima notes, The addition of
ovov would thus be a subtle attempt by Paul to tailor the peace benediction so
that it reinforces his previous calls for peace and unity among all the members of the
church.
63
The peace benediction in 16:20a is the second peace benediction within
the same letter closing; it is placed before the grace benediction;
64
here it calls for
God to act for someone (The God of peace will crush Satan under your feet
speedily); it is a part of the hortatory section where Paul himself addresses the
readers and strongly urges them to work for unity.
The second epistolary form in the Romans letter closing is the letter of
recommendation for Phoebe. It has a similar structure and content to that of
tiooiq ouooi|q or littera commendaticia in the Greco-Roman letters.
65
The

63
64
Some manuscripts place the grace benediction in 16:24 and some in 16:27; however, the widely
held view supports 16:20b as its original location.
65
The ancient letters of recommendation are studied by C. W. Keyes and Chan-Hie Kim. C. W.
Keyes, The Greek Letter of Introduction AJP 56 (1935), 28-44; Kim, Familiar Letter of
Recommendation. Phoebes letter of introduction has the following contents: 1) 2uvioqi t uiv (I
commend to you); 2) 1oiqv (Phoebe); 3) qv otiqv qov, ouoov [|oi] io|ovov q
t||iqoio q tv Kty_ptoi, (our sister, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae); 4) ivo ouqv
pootqot tv |upio oio ov oyiov |oi opooqt ouq tv o ov uov _pqq
poyoi (so that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in
whatever she may require from you); 5) |oi yop ouq poooi oiio v tytvqq |oi tou
ouou (for she has been a benefactor of many and of myself as well I commend ). The letter of
recommendation although not in the standard form can be found in 1 Cor 16:15-18 cf. Eph 6:21-22
66

Hellenistic letters have a fixed form to some extent, consisting of the elements: verb
of recommendation, name of the person recommended, describing phrase, request
clause, circumstantial clause and purpose clause. Phoebes letter of recommendation
has all the above mentioned forms except the circumstantial clause which implies
that Paul is following the example of contemporary letters of introduction.
66

Nevertheless, this does not reduce Pauls purpose of recommending Phoebe to the
Romans as she is the bearer of the letter.
The commonly held view is that the hortatory section in Romans 16:17-20 was
written by Pauls own hand (not explicitly mentioned) and that it serves as an
autograph. It echoes the concerns of the apostle in that it strongly warns those who
cause dissensions and divisions in the community. Karl Donfried observes that Rom
16:17-20 is the conclusion of the matters discussed in the previous chapters and that
it appears as a final warning, whereas Paul Achtemeier suggests that Rom 16:17-
20 not only summarizes Pauls exhortations in chaps. 12-16 but also reflects the
whole of his theology, namely the unity of Jews and Gentiles.
67

The doxology in Romans (16:25-27) is one of two doxologies in the undisputed
letters of Paul that appear in the letter closing (cf. Phil 4:20).
68
Many scholars have

and Col 4:7-8. Those who argue 1 Cor 16:15-18 is a formal letter of introduction are Gamble, Textual
History, 97; L. L. Belleville, Continuity or Discontinuity: A Fresh look at 1 Corinthians in the Light
of First Century Epistolary Forms and Conventions EvQ 59 (1987), 15-37, 34; G. D. Fee, The First
Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 832.
66
The notion that the ancient letters of recommendation are independent letters that are not found in
the letter closings made some scholars argue that Phoebes letter was originally an independent letter
of recommendation. However, Gamble cites several examples of letters that have the letter of
introduction in the closing of the letters; this probably places Phoebes letter as one of Romans letter
closing conventions as she is the bearer of the letter. See Gamble, Textual History, 84-87. Those who
hold the view that Rom 16:1, 2 is a separate letter are A. Deissmann, Light from the Ancient East,
(trans.) L. R. M. Strachen (London: Hodder & Stoughton, 1910), 171, 235; J. Moffatt, Introduction to
the Literature of the New Testament (New York: Charles Scribners Sons,
3
1918), 135; E. J.
Goodspeed, The Ancient Letter of Introduction, 55-57; Fitzmyer, Romans, 292; McDonald, Was
Romans XVI a separate letter?, 369-72.
67
K. Donfried (ed.), Romans debate, 44-52; P. J. Achtemeier, Romans (Atlanta: John Knox, 1985),
238.
68
The authenticity of the doxology in Romans has been questioned on textual and literary grounds,
since the manuscripts place the doxology in various places in 14:23; 15:33; 16:23. See above p.6, fn.
67

noticed the verbal and thematic links between the doxology in Romans and the
earlier parts of the letter, (e.g.16:25a- 1:11, 16; 9:17; 15:13, 19; 16:25b-26a-3:21).
69

Paul reflects the practice of contemporary letter closings in that the closing
conventions have the function of summarizing and reinforcing the main arguments of
the letter. The greetings in the Romans letter closing is the focus of the next section.
2.6. Greetings in the Romans Letter Closing
The form of greetings in the Romans letter closing is significantly different
when compared to other Pauline letters in some respects. It contains 21 greetings,
more than all the other undisputed Pauline letters. It has two greeting lists: 16:3-16
and 16:21-23, the first list being different from the second one. There are seventeen
greetings in the first list compared to four in the second.
70
The first list has more
greetings of the second person type, which is the instructional type, a type very rarely
used in the other letters.
2.6.1. The First Greeting List (16:3-16)
The first greeting list has group greetings as well as individual greetings.
Altogether twenty four persons are named and two persons are mentioned in
relational terms. Out of the twenty six people, nine are women.
71
The individuals
greeted are: Mary, Persis, Epaenetus, Amplias, Urbanus, Herodion, Apelles, Rufus,
Rufus mother; and the groups greeted are: Prisca and Aquila; Andronicus and Junia;

9. But there are still scholars who support its authenticity. See L. W. Hurtado, The Doxology at the
End of Romans, in New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays in Honour
of Bruce M. Metzger (eds. E. P. Epp and G. D. Fee, Oxford: Clarendon, 1981), 185-99. Weima,
Neglected Endings, 142.
69
See Gamble, Textual History, 123; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 913; Dunn observes that the doxology has
summarized well some of the basic concerns of the letter (917).
70
The second list of greetings (Rom 16:21-23) consists of individual and group greetings. Paul
communicates the greetings of the below mentioned persons to the Romans by using the third person
greeting formula and fewer descriptive phrases. The persons mentioned are: a) Timothy, o ouvtpyo
ou; b) Lucius, Jason, Sosipater oi ouvyytvti ou; c) Tertius, the writer of the letter; d) Gaius,
whose hospitality Paul and the whole church enjoyed; e) Erastus, city oi|ovoo; f) Quartus, our
brother.
71
It is possible to add Phoebe also in the list of the women greeted, since Phoebe was to be welcomed
(in the letter of recommendation) and welcome has a connotation of greeting.
68

Household of Aristobulus; Household of Narcissus; Tryphaena and Tryphosa;
Asyncritus, Philegon, Hermas, Patrobas, Hermes and the brethren; Philologus and
Julia, Nereus and his sister, Olympas and all the saints. The other two general
greetings in Romans 16 are: greet one another with a holy kiss
72
and all the
churches of Christ greet you.
A brief description of the descriptive phrases used for men is given in the
following.
73
Epaenetus is described as the first fruits in Asia into Christ (oop_q
q Aoio ti Xpioov; 16:5) like Stephanas, who is the first convert in Achaia
(1 Cor 16:15; cf. 2 Thess 2:13). Possibly, the first converts are devoted to ministry
and emerged to be the leading figures in the church.
74

Paul often indicates his affection for particular Christians, by referring to them
as my beloved [name] (Rom 16:5, 8-9b; Epaenetus, Amplias, Stachys) cf. the
beloved Persis (Rom 16:12). oyoqo denotes a warm personal relationship
(16:5, 8, 9, 12). Amplias is described as Pauls beloved in the Lord (oyoqov ou
tv |upio), which shows Pauls relationship with him as well as his standing in
relation to the Lord and the Roman church (v.8). The description of some individuals
as oyoqo is important since Paul emphasises the theme of oyoq in Rom 12-
15.
o|io may refer to Apelles maturity (16:10), that he is respected and
esteemed (cf. Rom 14:18), but it is more probable that Paul could mean he is tested
and proved as a Christian.
75
Paul is recognizing in a way their positive efforts for the
expansion of the church as well as one another in the Lord. The term involves the

72
The holy kiss is discussed as a separate section. See below 2.6.2.
73
For the phrases used of women, see below chapter 4.
74
See Moo, Romans, 920; L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988),
533.
75
Godet [F. L. Godet, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans, Vol. 2 (Edinburgh: T&T Clark,
1880), 492]; Murray [J. Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (Vol. 2; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965)];
Moo, Romans, 924; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 896 accept it as a character that is tested and proved.
69

testing of ones character or proof of ones character (2 Cor 2:9; 8:2; 9:13; 13:3; Phil
2:22).
t|it|o is used of individuals chosen for a particular task, and so Rufus was
known as one specially chosen for some role or to bear some significance (16:13). It
is less plausible to identify Rufus as the son of Simon of Cyrene, since Paul evidently
knows of no other Christian Rufus in Rome and Mark 15:21 gives evidence of a
Christian Rufus well known to the Christian community.
76

The final greeting in the first list: all the churches of Christ greet you is
significant as Paul speaks in wider terms to express the greetings to Romans. As
Weima puts it, so here it seems, Paul presents himself to the Romans as one who has
the official backing of all the churches in Achaia, Macedonia, Asia, Galatia, Syria
and elsewhere in the eastern part of the empire.
77
This is the only third person
greeting in the list out of the seventeen greetings. This greeting has a universal
implication for the exhortations in the letter, that he was not alone in his missionary
endeavour; rather a large number of churches joined him in the body of Christ to pass
on their greetings. It is also significant to note the important bearing that the greeting
has on the instructions given in earlier chapters. It highlights the mutual
interdependence by being one body in Christ, i.e. relationships in Christ that build
up one another.
The first list of greetings in Romans has many peculiarities. The recipients of
the letter are not merely readers of the letter but they are asked by Paul to participate
in the action of the greeting, i.e. they are not silently accepting the exhortations in the
letter but have an active role in contextualising the exhortations. The whole group is

76
See Cranfield, Romans, 2: 794; Moo, Romans, 926; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 897; contra Ksemann,
Romans, 414; Schlier (H. Schlier, Der Rmerbrief (HThKNT 6. Freiburg: Herder, 1977), 445.
77
70

asked to greet the people mentioned since the greeting formula oooooot (you-pl)
indicates that the audience is a group rather than an individual.
What are the social dynamics in the greeting with the verb oooooot? Is
oooooot the same as that of Paul greeting the third party or the second group
greeting the third party? Gamble suggests that the imperative form of the greeting
verb represents a direct personal greeting of the writer and has the effect of Pauls
own greetings to those addressed in the letter.
78
However, the instruction you greet
possibly deepens and strengthens relationships between B (recipients of the letter)
and C (the recipients of the greeting), thus establishing a mutual bond between A
(Paul) and B and between B and C and between A and C. It also modifies the
relationships between B and C by strengthening friendship and increasing respect for
the persons greeted. If the greeting would be considered as having the same effect as
that of a Pauline greeting, then the outcome of it is diminished and the persons in
between act as agents only. As the persons in group B should be regarded as the
intended readership of the letter or the members of the congregation of Rome, the
position of group C, whether they are the people outside the congregation or
members of the same should be taken into consideration. It is meaningful that
greetings in the second person imperative induce a web of relationships no matter
whether they are of the same congregation or not. When one person is being greeted,
the whole group of the Roman community joins in the greeting and vice versa
creating mutual greetings, implying a call to strengthen oyoq among the Roman
Christians. It is significant that the greetings function in representing or re-
positioning one another or in fact relating one another.

78
Gamble, Textual History, 93. The closing greetings function as a more direct and personal way of
expressing and developing an intimate bond between Paul and his readers, as well as promoting unity
and fellowship among the various churches. Weima, Neglected Endings, 115.
71

The commendatory element in the first list is also unique in Romans because
no other Pauline letters have such elaborative phrases that praise the persons being
greeted. According to Gamble the use of the descriptive phrases denotes the
significant relationship between the persons greeted and Paul himself (16:3-4, 5, 7-9,
13). He ties them to himself and himself to them.
79
These descriptive phrases may
not be used by Paul to help the Roman Christians identify the persons being
greeted, since such persons must be known to the Roman community, but in order to
give the greetings a strong commendation.
80
Weima points out that the greetings
contain laudatory phrases that emphasize positive relations between the person
greeted and Paul, thereby supporting the apostles credibility among the believers in
Rome who do not know him personally.
81
However, the relationship between Paul
and the persons greeted is only one of the dimensions of the social relations which
Paul wants to express through greetings.
Paul acknowledges womens toil and hard work in the same way as he
describes his ministry. The women greeted in the list with the descriptive phrases
indicate their active part in the Christian church. The names of ten women appear in
Romans 16:1-16: Phoebe, Prisca, Mary, Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, Rufus
mother, Julia, Nereus sister. Phoebe, Prisca (with Aquila) and Junia (with
Andronicus) are introduced with more descriptive phrases. All of them except Julia
and Nereus sister are given descriptive phrases with regard to their active roles in
the church. For example, Phoebe as io|ovo, Prisca as ouvtpyo, Junia as
prominent among the apostles, Mary, Persis, Tryphoena, Tryphosa, as hard
working members, Rufus mother as the mother of Paul, and Julia and Nereus sister
in connection with the group greeting (these are analysed in the fourth chapter).

79
80
81
72

Romans 16 has an extensive number of descriptive phrases among the Pauline
letters; apart from Romans (and except one instance in Col 4:15), there is no
individualization of the recipients of greetings through naming names or adding
descriptive phrases.
82
The greetings of Romans 16 are addressed to specific
individuals and groups while in other letters Paul uses a general and collective
greeting. As Gamble suggests, The particularisation of the greetings is
accomplished not only by the naming of names, but in many cases by supplying the
names with rich descriptive characterizations.
83

The relational character of the greetings in Romans can be seen as the persons
are greeted in relation to Paul, Christ and the church. The descriptive phrases in the
greeting list emphasize the strong relations that existed between the persons
greeted/praised by Paul.
84
By acknowledging Pauls relations with some persons in
the Roman community, Paul is building up strong relations with such persons by
becoming part of the commendations that those persons receive. As Gamble
suggests, Pauls commendatory greetings to specific individuals serve to place those
individuals in a position of respect vis--vis the community, but also, by linking the
Apostle so closely with them, place Paul in the same position.
85
The ways of
greetings in the Lord show their relationship with the Lord as well as love,
solidarity and affection between those who belong to the Lord.
86
Moreover, the

82

Although Nymphas name is mentioned in Col 4:15, no descriptive
phrase is used. Therefore the descriptive phrases used in the second person type of greetings in
Romans 16 are significant and a number of phrases are used qualifying the persons mentioned.
83
84
Ksemann, Romans, 412; Gamble, Textual History, 92; Weima, Neglected Endings, 226.
85
86
Schreiner, Romans, 790. They are not merely secular hellos but are rooted in the new life of
Christ. Thus the phrases with |upio which occur in greetings show the impact of ones relationship
with Christ in the practical and ethical context of the church as a whole. It denotes the present
sovereign dominion in the life of a Christian and on the other, it implies the solidarity, affection and
mutuality between the people of the community, since it indicates the influence of Christ on the life of
a Christian incorporated into him. See J. A. Fitzmyer, Paul and His Theology (New Jersey: Prentice
Hall, 1989), 90.
73

phrase in the Lord serves as a unifying factor. It shows the new identity of the
believers in the community in relation to Christ. Thus it holds all the members of the
community together irrespective of gender, status, and ethnicity, around one axis.
Phoebe, Prisca and Aquila are mentioned in relation to the church: Phoebe as the
io|ovo of the church; Paul identifies the church in the house of Prisca and Aquila
and also acknowledges that all the churches of the Gentiles are grateful to them,
which seems to be an approval of their roles as well as their support for many groups
of Gentile Christians.
What is more important to this research is the dynamic of relationships that
Paul wants to urge in the life of Roman Christians through the greetings. In this
dynamic, Paul does not exclude womens participation, which is very clear from his
praise of certain women in the greeting list. I suggest that these women named and
greeted were involved in greeting others and that they are not only in the receiving
end of the greeting but also pass on the welcome and greeting to others. All the
members of the community have an active participation in one way or other.
Greeting is a way of acknowledging and welcoming others. Moreover, the
Christological significance in the relationship of the church is emphasized as Paul
describes those people in the Lord and in Christ, which gives impetus for the
church to maintain the dynamics in relationship to one another. The church has no
existence without Christ and the relationships should be maintained in the manner of
Christ.

Apart from the two group greetings in Rom 16:14, 15 and the household of Aristobulus, all
of them are mentioned in relation to the Lord. They are greeted in Christ Jesus (tv Xpioo Iqoou
v.3), or in Christ (tv Xpioo v. 9), beloved in the Lord (v.8), tested in Christ (tv Xpioo v.10),
those in the Lord (v.11), those who labour in the Lord (v.12), or who are elect in the Lord (v.13).
Epaenetus is the first-fruits of Asia in Christ (v.5) and Andronicus and Junia are notable because
they were in Christ (v.7) before Paul.
74

2.6.2. Greeting with a Holy Kiss
The imperative used in the context of the greetings in Romans 16:16a for the
exchange of the holy kiss is significant as it appears as a summation of the whole
greeting list.
87
What does this signify? Could the exchange of the holy kiss be
among the members of a closed community of friends or relatives? Where does it
originate? What was the meaning of the holy kiss?
The practice of the holy kiss is regarded as originating in the community of
believers,
88
since the role of the kiss has its specific importance among the believers
rather than being found in the Greco-Roman world
89
or ancient Judaism.
90
Others

87
The Greek noun for kiss is iiq o, which comes from the verb iito, whose primary meaning is
to love, and the expression of love can be in the outward act of a kiss. For more discussion see
Sthlin, iito |i. TDNT 9, 113-171 at 128-146.
88
In the New Testament, the noun iiqo (kiss) is used seven times. They are: a) Jesus expectation
of a welcoming kiss from Simon (Lk 7:45); b) Jesus asking Judas about kissing the Son of Man (Lk
22:48); c) Pauls instructions to greet with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16; 1 Cor 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; 1 Thess
5:26); and d) the kiss of agape (1 Pet 5:14).
The verb |ooiito appears six times. In Matt 26:49 and Mark 14:45, it is used in
connection with Judas, whereas in Luke three references can be found: woman kissing Jesus feet
(7:38, 45) and the father kissing the lost son on his return (15:20). Another reference is in Acts 20:37,
which refers to the occasion when the Ephesian elders bid farewell to Paul. Among the above
instances, there is only one reference to a woman kissing a man while in other cases it is not specified
but possibly men kissing each other. The erotic sense of kiss is not found in the New Testament and
the kiss command by Paul and Peter cannot be regarded with such a connotation.
89
In Greco-Roman society, the nature of the kiss differs with the levels of society and region. A
public kiss (both heterosexual and homosexual) is not encouraged in Greco-Roman society. Clement
of Alexandria rules that one is never to kiss his wife in the presence of domestics, and never even to
greet her in the presence of slaves. W. Klassen, Kiss 4 ABD, 89-92, at 91. References to a public
kiss can be found in: Plutarch Cato 17E, where the elder Cato dismissed Manilius out of the Senate
due to his public kiss to his wife in the presence of his daughters; Aristophanes Frogs 754, where the
slaves kissed each other signifying a new-found community. There is also evidence for the practice of
the kiss that denotes the reunion of loved ones, the role of reconciliation and showing love towards
one another ( Lucian, Alexander the False Prophet 39).
The Pauline admonition to kiss cannot be regarded as having its source from the practice of
Greco-Roman world. There is no basis in ancient texts, Jewish and Greco-Roman, outside the New
Testament for the transformation of the kiss into a sign of religious community. W. Klassen, The
Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social Boundary Lines, NTS 39 (1993), 122-135,
at 128; see also K. Thraede, Ursprnge und Formen des heiligen Kusses im frhen Christentum
JAC 11/12 (1967-68), 124-180 at 145.
90
It is difficult to trace the origin of this custom in Judaism or Christianity. The different
interpretations of the significance of the practice can be seen as: a) exchanging power from one person
to another, b) a ceremonial greeting related to the Old Testament practices, or c) related to prayer.
Klassen, Kiss, 90. Some similarities can also be seen in the practices of Judaism. Josephus referred
to a kiss four times. He used the noun iiqo in the death scene of Masada, when the fathers bid
farewell to their loved ones before they massacre them (J.W. 7:321). The other examples are the kiss
of Amasa which led to murder (Ant. 7:284); the kiss of reconciliation between Achab and Adabos
75

find the custom has its start in the life and ministry of Jesus primarily in the post-
resurrection experiences of John 20:21-23 or when Judas kissed Jesus in the garden,
which conveyed different messages; to the outsiders (a sign) and the insiders (usual
greeting), which is commonly called as a kiss of betrayal.
91

Pauls exhortation to greet with the holy kiss (iiqo oyiov) is found four
times in his letters in the epistolary conclusion (1 Thess 5:26; 1 Cor 16:20b; 2 Cor
13:12; Rom 16:16) out of the seven undisputed letters; cf. 1 Pet 5:14, it is kiss of
love (iiqo oyoq). oooooot is the verb and the object of the action is
expressed with oiiqiou tv iiqoi oyio (Greet one another with a holy kiss).
The variations involve the reversed order of oyio iiqoi in 2 Cor 13:12a
and ou otiou ovo in 1 Thess 5:26 (Greet all the believers with a holy

(Ant. 8:387); and the pagan king, Darius kisses the guardsman, Zerubabelos (Ant. 11.59), where the
kiss signifies the seal of the covenant between the pagan king and a devout Jew.
In the Old Testament, it is recorded that Jacob kissed Rachel at their first meeting (Gen
29:11) See Klassen, Kiss, 90. (Some Jewish commentators explained that Jacob wept after the kiss
because those who had seen him kiss Rachel would propose that he would introduce some new form
of licentiousness. Josephus records that not Jacob but Rachel wept and there is no kiss, although Jacob
is overcome with love for the maid and amazed in her beauty (Ant.1.288-91)). Laban complained of
not being allowed to kiss his daughters and grandchildren, when Jacob and his family went out
without notice (Gen 31:28). Other examples of kiss in the Old Testament are Gen 29:11, 13; 31:28;
32:1; 33:4; Exod 4:27; 18:7. The other two references where the heterosexual kiss occurred are in
Esthers meeting with King Artaxerxes (Add Esth 15:8-12); and Raguels kiss with his daughter (Tob
10: 12). However, there is little evidence for non-relatives kissing each other.
In Judaism, the kiss has three different functions as a kiss of reverence, kiss of reunion or
reconciliation (Gen 45:15), and kiss of farewell and there is no general advice given to kiss each
other in Jewish sources. Klassen, Sacred Kiss, 124. The story of Joseph and Aseneth, which is pre-
Christian, has references to a number of kisses. C. Burchard, Joseph and Aseneth, in J. H.
Charlesworth (ed.), The Old Testament Pseudepigrapha 2 (London: Darton, Longman and
Todd,1985), 177-248, at 206f. Asenath greets her parents with a kiss (4.1) and her father in turn kisses
her (4.7) and when Joseph arrives, her father urges her to greet Joseph. There are a lot of references
and kiss has multiple connotations in Joseph and Asenath as a reverential greeting, a part of reunion,
part of reconciliation and an erotic sense as well. See also Klassen, Sacred Kiss, 124,125.
The kiss was not seen as a formal act by Jews in the first century. Jews had set limitations,
as Egyptian men and women would not kiss Greek lips defiled by animal sacrifice (Herodotus 2.41)
and later Christians would not kiss pagans. Klassen, Sacred Kiss, 125. There is less evidence for the
practice of the public kiss among Jews in the Second Temple Period.
In one of the rabbinic commentaries on Genesis (Gen. Rab. 70[45b]) it is written: in general,
kissing leads to immorality: there are however three exceptions, namely kissing someone to honour
that person (Samuel kissing Saul, 1 Sam 10:5), or kissing upon seeing someone after a long absence
(Aaron kissed Moses, Exod 4:27), and the farewell kiss (as when Orpah kissed Naomi (Ruth 1:14).
Klassen, Sacred Kiss, 126.
91
See Klassen, Sacred Kiss, 128; S. Benko, Pagan Rome and the Early Christians (Bloomington:
Indiana University Press, 1969), 82. Benko finds the beginnings in the post resurrection appearances
(John 20:21-23).
76

kiss),
92
preceded by Pauls request to his readers to pray for him. Klassen suggests
that in 1 Thess 5:26 it is a command to kiss without urging a mutual exchange of
kisses and that in the other three cases since the admonition is in the midst of the
discussion of greetings, to and from others, it seems evident that the imperative is
meant to assume that mutual greeting should not be neglected.
93

It is likely that the practice of the holy kiss emerged in the context of the first
Christians. As Klassen argues, Paul was the first popular ethical teacher known to
instruct members of social groups to continue to greet each other with a kiss
whenever or wherever they meet.
94
In fact the imperative has not drawn boundaries
regarding gender and it is not an erotic act, but an act meant to express oyoq (1 Pet
5:14).
It is worth noting that the admonition to practise the holy kiss situated in the
context of greetings in the conclusion of the letter has its impact on the whole focus
of the letter. In Romans 16, the instruction to kiss comes at the end of the instruction
to greet a number of named individuals and groups including men and women and
they are to be kissed as equals, although they represented separate branches of the
believing community in Rome.
95
The consensus is that the holy kiss should be
practised only when the church is gathered or in the context of worship.
96
But it is a
sign of love and affection wherever Christians meet rather than restricted to one
context.

92
NRSV translates ou otiou as the brothers and sisters.
93
94
Klassen, Sacred Kiss, 130. The practice was not restricted to the worship context, but as
something the Christians should practise wherever they meet.
95
Jewett, Romans, 974. He suggests that the holy kiss is not limited to the familial boundary, but it is
practised among all members of the body of Christ irrespective of their custom or culture.
96
Benko suggests that the holy kiss has its significance in relation to the role of the Holy Spirit, that
the Holy Spirit was transmitted and received through the kiss and the kiss thus becomes the life
giving breath of God; see Benko, Pagan Rome, 81, 82, 92.
77

The holy kiss can be an expression of the oneness of people who represent
different social classes, and it expresses the warmth of love transcending gender,
religious, national, and ethnic divisions. It signifies that they saw themselves as in
Christ and the new reality is affirmed in the freedom of quite innocently greeting
each other with a holy kiss.
97
Thus this practice strengthens the relationship between
one another.
It is possible that Pauls request to greet with a holy kiss puts weight on the
word holy and that the greetings should be with proper and holy motives because
the early church found problems with the kiss greeting, the exchange of the kiss
suggesting an erotic experience.
98
Therefore in such a background, Pauls
admonition may be a warning against such unholy practices. However, the reference
to a holy (oyiov) kiss indicates the way by which the apostle wants to characterize
the greeting kiss of believers (oyioi) in distinction from others who practised it.
Among Christians, the kiss symbolized unity and togetherness for Christians, but for
others it could be simply an expression of friendship and good will.
99

Therefore the practice of the holy kiss has its impact in holding a community
together without divisions and disparities. On the other hand, the possibility of kiss
becoming merely a ritual cannot be overlooked. It is a sign of fellowship within the
community, of the community with the Apostle, and indeed of one community with
others.
100
As Klassen rightly suggests, The admonitions to kiss one another serve to

97
98
Weima, Neglected Endings, 113. The erotic element found in Song of Songs is taken as an allegory.
But the Old Testament warns of the dangers of the woman kiss (Prov 7:13). Also the woman kissing
Jesus feet can be viewed as an act of reverence or gratitude or an expression of agape, see Klassen,
Kiss, 129.
99
Benko, Pagan Rome, 98.
100
78

stress the liberty to express without inhibition to all people of whatever background,
rank or gender, the ardour of agape in any context.
101

Pauls admonition to greet one another with a holy kiss in the context of
greetings in Romans is significant as it includes all members of the Roman Church,
including those he has not mentioned in the list of greetings. It has a function of
creating love, affection and mutual care among the believers and signifies Pauls
strategy to bring about mutuality in the community, which is the focus of Rom 12-
15. Pauline purpose of greeting in the second person imperative in Romans reaches
its peak in Romans 16:16a, as oooooot oiiqiou is used. It shows how this
people are important to his ministry as well as to the church and to one another
(oiiqiou).
2.7. Conclusion
The greetings in Pauls letters clearly reflect the epistolary practice of his day.
The elaborations and additions found in the greetings are used by Paul in a way that
relates to the particular situation of his letters to specific communities. The form of
greetings in the Romans letter closing is significant since among the Pauline letter
closings, Romans contains more instructional greetings. In the instructional form, the
writer instructs the addressee to greet a third party. The extensive use of instructional
greetings in Romans, which are very specific as well as loaded with descriptive
phrases, implies that Paul wishes to preserve a close rapport with the congregations
as he instructs them to act for him.
Although Paul instructs the readers to greet a third party, it has the effect of
group Bs direct greeting to group C. These greetings can express the intimate bond
between Paul and his readers, his readers and the persons greeted, and Paul and the

101
79

persons greeted as well. The instruction to greet one another is the climax of the
greetings which in fact throws light on the mutuality of relationships. Pauls
instruction to greet others points to his desire to bring unity among the churches as
well as among the believers in the Christian community.
The mutuality of relationships in Romans transcends gender discrimination in
the Christian community as Paul accepts men and women as his associates, which is
very significant in this study. The women being greeted with descriptive phrases
implies that they played leadership roles in the church. What are the leadership roles
implied by the descriptive phrases? We analyse in the following chapters womens
leadership roles implied in the greetings against the backdrop of contemporary
Greco-Roman society. The leadership of women in Greco-Roman society is the
focus of the next chapter.

80

Chapter 3
Women in the Roman Empire
3.1. Introduction
In Roman Wives, Roman Widows, B. W. Winter has successfully shown that
women were evidently engaged in politeia (politei/a), contrary to the common
perception that wives in the first century were a monochrome group, who were
confined to domestic dwellings in order to fulfil the role of dutiful wife engaged
primarily in childbearing and managing the household, which is also assumed of
women in the early Christian communities.
1
In his reconstruction of the social
settings of womens lives in the first century, Winter is aiming at a deconstruction of
the common perception that women were kept away from the public and played the
roles of wives and household management. He musters evidence that women were
involved in the public sphere, and it is very unlikely that one could epitomize all
first-century marriages by a single stereotype of restriction to the home and
reproductive activity in the vast Roman Empire, any more than it would be possible
to do so today in our multicultural world.
2

This chapter focuses on the roles of women in areas of public non-religious
life and religious life in the Roman Empire, which helps us understand their possible
influence on women in Pauline communities. While basically agreeing with Winter
that his presentation of new women in the Roman empire does offer more help to
understand women in Pauline communities, I will carry it further to point out that
the epigraphic evidence can provide a solid backdrop against which the leadership
roles of women (Romans 16:1-16) can be properly situated. In doing so, I will draw

1
Winter, Roman Wives, 6. Winter defines politeia in terms of all activities outside the home and not
in terms of womens involvement in the political sphere. Winter, Roman Wives, 173.
2
Winter, Roman Wives, 6.
81

from other scholars of first century social and religious life as I discuss women in
courts, politics, magistracy, patronage, priesthood and Jewish synagogues.
3

3.2. Women in Courts
It is interesting to note that womans ability was used in an effective manner
in the political sphere in the early centuries in the Greco-Roman world. As Bauman
writes, there were from about the turn of the third century (BCE), women lawyers,
some of whom not only had a theoretical knowledge of the law, but also gave
opinions to consultants... And women did put their knowledge to good use in the
political sphere, though unlike men they could not use it to attract votes in the chase
for public office.
4
There were women who argued for themselves or on behalf of
others in the courts. Valerius Maximus refers to womens defence in courts as they
were compelled against their will to testify in the courts before a large gathering of
men in the time of Cicero (106-43 BCE).
5
Fannia is recorded as the first woman
who conducted her own defence against her husband regarding the return of her
dowry (100 BCE). Her husband married her with the purpose to divorce her on the
grounds of unchastity, which was known to him before marriage, since he wanted to
acquire her property.
6

Another example is that of women who became legal advisors after their
training in law in the first century BCE or CE, and were active in prosecuting the
cases of their fellow people.
7
Maesia of Sentinum in the early first century was

3
Half of this chapter focuses on Jewish synagogues because Paul might be more influenced by Jewish
culture and practice. He often went to the synagogues after his conversion experience (Acts 13:42;
17:1, 2, 10, 17; 18:4, 7, 8, 17, 19, 26; 19:8; 22:19; 26:11).
4
R. A. Bauman, Women and Politics in Ancient Rome (London: Routledge, 1992), 45-46. Bauman
comments that the opinions of women lawyers did not have the same capacity to make law as the
responsa of male practitioners. His comparison of the skills of the women lawyers with that of male
counterparts is not appealing.
5
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, VIII. 3.
6
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, VIII. 3
7
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, VIII. 3. 2. See also Bauman, Women and
Politics, 50.
82

highly proficient in the law and demonstrated her skill in male dominated courts,
such that she was called an Androgyne (man-woman).
8

Carfania, a senators wife (died c 48 BCE), was ever ready for lawsuit and
always spoke on her behalf before the Praetor, not because she could not find
advocates but because she had impudence to spare.
9
Carfanias act resulted in the
change of the law that prohibited women from making claims for others before
magistrates.
The Justinian code supports women in litigation concerning civic status,
obligations of freed condition, marriage, divorce, support, dowry, minority status
and child custody-essentially private matters, though also among those most often of
concern to men, too.
10
Juvenal (c. CE 60-100) gives evidence of women conducting
cases, learning civil laws and performing judgement. It is interesting to note the
questions raised by women as he quotes, Do we as women ever conduct cases? Are
we learned in civic law? Do we disturb your courts with our shouting?, questions
all answered by yes.
11

The above evidence shows that some women were learned in law and were
active in prosecution as well as defence. The prohibitions concerning their
involvement lead us to wonder whether those were caused by a few women
trespassing male dominated spheres. However, the participation of women in these
areas could not be entirely forbidden.

8
Bauman, Women and Politics, 50.
9
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, 8.3.2; see also Winter, Roman Wives, 177;
Bauman, Women and Politics, 50. The Valleian decree of the Senate was put into practice in the time
of Claudius or Nero and this resulted in discouraging women from bringing requests for another
person. The reason for the edict was Carfania who brought requests without shame and dishonour
before magistrates. See J. E. Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on
Marriage, Divorce and Widowhood (London: Routledge, 2002), 60-61.
10
See R. MacMullen, Women in Public in the Roman Empire, Historia 29 (1980) 208-18, at 210.
11
Juvenal, Satires, 2. 51-52, see also Winter, Roman Wives, 179.
83

3.3. Women in Politics
Womens names are seen in the election posters in Pompeii asking electors to
vote for their candidate, where the majority of supporters were women. Husbands
and wives together also supported candidates and asked the people to vote.
12

MacMullen notices that the wifes name coming ahead of that of her husband
shows an inversion of the status explained by neither of the parties having any
sense of status between them at all, or by the woman being free or freed, the man
freed or slave.
13
This signifies the importance of the wifes higher rank or higher
social status than her husband. The candidates for civic office were also supported
by women alongside their husbands. At least one married woman was allowed to
speak in the Forum before the Triumvirs. Valerius Maximus refers to Hortensia,
who argued against the heavy tax imposed on women and won the case by lessening
the heavy tax yoke.
14

Thus there are reasons to doubt Cotters generalisation: she states, in the
matter of public presence, Roman culture did not allow women to call attention to
themselves. In legislative and juridical assemblies women were excluded from any
leadership role and any role that would bring attention to themselves.
15

3.4. Women Magistrates and Patronage
Apart from the evidence of literary as well as legal sources that limits
womens role to the private sphere, some inscriptions throw light on the significant
roles of women in the ancient world. As Rives comments, the importance of
women in civic life is another aspect of the ancient world that is known almost

12
MacMullen, Women in Public in the Roman Empire, 209; see also Winter, Roman Wives, 180.
13
MacMullen, Women in Public in the Roman Empire, 209; see also Winter, Roman Wives, 180.
14
Valerius Maximus, Memorable Doings and Sayings, VIII. 3. 3. He writes, Hortensia, daughter of
Q. Hortensius, pleaded the cause of women before the Triumvirs resolutely and successfully when the
order of matrons had been burdened by then with a heavy tax and none of the other sex ventured to
lend them his advocacy.
15
Cotter, Womens Authority Roles, 367
84

entirely from inscriptions, since legal and literary sources usually depict women as
largely relegated to private life.
16
Some examples are the following:
Phile, the daughter of Apollonius and wife of Thessalus, was honoured as the
first woman in Priene to hold the office of magistrate (first century BCE).
17
Her
position in the public sphere and her benefactions indeed highlight the fact that
wealth had an important role in public life and could alter the position of women in
society.
18

Another woman is Plancia Magna from Perge, who was the magistrate of her
city, as well as occupying the priesthood of Artemis and the priesthood of the
imperial cult. She was honoured with two statues and is recorded as the daughter of
the city and the benefactor in these statutes.
19
Claudia Metrodora from Chios is
also an influential figure, who was a powerful woman in the public sphere and a
contemporary of Junia Theodora.
20
She financed festivals and buildings associated
with her native city and she acted as a civic patron.
21

Another example of a woman combining public office with her role in the
household is Aurelia Leite of Paros, who was honoured by the erection of a marble

16
J. Rives, Civic and Religious Life, in J. Bodel, (ed.), Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient History from
Inscriptions (London: Routledge, 2001), 118-136 at 135, 136.
17
Die Inschriften von Priene, no. 208. Winter, Roman Wives, 181. Women holding the position of
magistrates in the ancient world are in contradiction to Grubbs view that women did not serve as
magistrates or senators at all in Roman history. See Grubbs, Women and the Law in the Roman
Empire, 71.
18
Rives, Civic and Religious Life, 136.
19
LAnne pigraphique (1958), 78; (1965), 209. See Winter, Roman Wives, 182; Rives, Civic and
Religious Life, 136; M. T. Boatwright, Plancia Magna of Perge: Womens Roles and Status in
Roman Asia Minor, in S. B. Pomeroy (ed.), Womens History and Ancient History (London: The
University of North Carolina Press, 1991), 249-272.
20
The inscriptions of Claudia Metrodora are found in L. Robert, Inscriptions de Chios du Ier sicle
de notre re, tudes pigraphiques et philologiques (Paris: Champion, 1938), 133-34; J. and L.
Robert, Bulletin pigraphique, Revue der tudes grecques 69 (1956) 152-53, no. 213 ; J. Keil,
Inschriftenin Forschungen in Ephesos III (Vienna, 1923), 94-95, no. 3; Die Inschriften von Ephesus,
VII.1 no. 3003. See pp. 26, 85.
21
R. A. Kearsley, Women in the Public East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and Phoebe,
Benefactress of Paul, TynBul 50 (1999), 189-211, at 199. Claudia Metrodora was the magistrate of
the city in two occasions and four times gymnasiarch. See also J. M. Arlandson, Women, Class, and
Society in Early Christianity: Models from Luke-Acts (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997), 36.
85

statue of the wisdom-loving, husband-loving, children-loving woman.
22
There were
also women holding a magistracy of the city after the first century as there were
seventeen women in proportion to 214 men found in coins in the East from CE 180-
275.
23

A contemporary inscription from Corinth (c. CE 43) testifies that the Roman
colony honours a benefactress, named Junia Theodora, described by the cognate
noun prostasi/a of the noun prosta/tiv.
24
She lived in Corinth during the period
of Pauls mission in Corinth. Her activity is related to commercial patronage. The
public honouring of Junia occurs in five separate decrees or official letters that were
recorded on a composite inscription erected in Corinth.
25
The inscriptions testify
that Junia was a Roman citizen with considerable wealth which she used to offer
hospitality to ambassadors and to care for Lycian exiles in Corinth. She is described
in a decree of the people of Patara in Lycia as a woman held in highest honour
who copiously supplied from her own means many of our citizens with generosity,
and received them in her home and in particular never ceased acting on behalf of
citizens in regard to any favour asked the majority of citizens have gathered in
assembly to offer testimony on her behalf.
26

22
IG xii. 5.292 (c. CE 300).
23
MacMullen, Women in Public, 213.
24
D. I. Pallas, S. Charitonidis, and J. Venencie, Inscriptions lyciennes trouves Solmos prs de
Corinthe Bulletin de Correspondance hllenique 83 (1959), 496-508; Kearsley, Women in the
Public East, 194-195. The value of this epigraphic material to our understanding of Phoebes activity
lies in its contemporaneity, its location, and its detailing. Theodora is recognized by the federal
assembly of the Lycians for her hospitality to Lycians travelling to Corinth, and her meeting of their
needs, possibly commercial. The text alludes to the elevated civic circles in which she had influence,
and among which she was able to act on behalf of the Lycians. See Clarke, Jew and Greek, 116. See
also Winter, Roman Wives, 186. She acted as a patron of thirty six cities of the Lycian Federation. See
pp. 26, 84.
25
Winter, Roman Wives, 183. The official letters include: a decree of the Federal Assembly of the
Lycian cities; a letter from the Lycian city of Myra to the Magistrates of Corinth; a decree of the
Lycian city of Patara; a letter and decree of the Federal Assembly of Lycia; a decree of the Lycian city
of Telmessos.
26
M. R. Lefkowitz and M. B. Kant, Womens Life in Greece and Rome: A Source Book in Translation
(London: Duckworth, 1992), 160.
86

As noted in the examples given above, public patronage, by which a wealthy
benefactor endowed a city and received approval by means of statues, inscriptions
and public office, and the patronage of clubs, associations, trade guilds, etc., were
common in the Greco-Roman world.
27
The patrons of clubs presided at meetings; the
titles of leadership were also given to them, and they had the right to perform special
ceremonial duties.

Female benefactors described by the term prosta/tiv are present
in epigraphic sources.
28
As MacMullen also observes, perhaps a tenth of the
protectors and donors that the collegia sought out were women.
29

As Kloppenborg suggests, inscriptions from the fourth century BCE to the
later Roman Empire demonstrate that voluntary associations represented a cultural
institution integral to Hellenistic and Roman society where they played a significant
role in mediating various kinds of social exchange.
30
The members exerted their
freedom to speak their opinions, and the binding factors were fellowship and
friendliness. Moreover, they were granted the opportunity to become an officer or
magistrate and to participate in a cursus honorum to which he or she could never
aspire outside of the association.
31
Due to their greater independence in possessing

27
C. Osiek and D. L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and House churches
(Louisville: John Knox, 1997), 50; C. Osiek & M. Y. MacDonald, A Womans Place: House
Churches in Earliest Christianity (Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006), 199-209. For Benefactors and the
institution of Patronage, see L. Y. Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians:
Illuminating Ancient Ways of Life (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009), 285-301.
28
See G. H. R. Horsley, NewDocs, 4:239-244. Examples include PGM 36, 338; 1 Eph 1V.1063. The
term prosta/tiv (patronus in Latin) (or epistates) denoted an official of the collegium. J. S.
Kloppenborg, Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in function, taxonomy and membership, in J. S.
Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (eds.), Voluntary Associations in the Graeco-Roman World (London:
Routledge, 1996), 16-30, at 26.
29
MacMullen, Women in Public, 211. See also G. Clemente, II Patrnato Nei Collegis DellImpero
Romano Studi classici e orientali 21 (1972), 142-229, at 160-213.
30
Kloppenborg, Collegia, 17.
31
Kloppenborg, Collegia, 18. Franz Poland assumes that every association is in some sense a cult
association, while Kloppenborg argues that the more helpful categorization could be based on
membership, rather than purposes and that the three categories are shared occupation, household
connections and common cult. F. Poland, Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens (Leipzig:
Teubner, 1909), 5; Kloppenborg, Collegia, 23, 24; see also P. A. Harland, Associations, Synagogues
and Congregations: Claiming a place in Ancient Mediterranean Society (Minneapolis: Fortress,
2003), 29.
87

money and power in the imperial period,
32
women often take the role of benefactor
for clubs and associations.
33
It is also striking to see the occurrence of mater collegii
in inscriptions in connection with the professional guilds.
34
Harland identifies
mothers and daughters of civic and official organizations.
35

Thus, women were probably not only members but also leading members in
professional guilds. Some of the titles used in associations carry important
overtones for our study of Romans 16, which would help us figure out the roles of
women in Pauline communities. However, instead of arguing for complete
equivalence of the model of associations to that of the Pauline community, I will

32
Women enjoyed more freedom and privileges under the Roman law. The examples are 1) free
marriage (sine manu) escaped the fetters of manus mariti. There is a notion that men married in their
early thirties, and it is likely that the wife survived her husband so she would be sui iuris, as would her
grown daughters. In sine manu, women were on equal par with their husbands in terms of ownership
and disposal of property by the system of separation of goods; 2) The ius trium liberorum, the law of
three children or four children allowed women to act without a guardian and transact business without
a tutor; 3) The tutor optivus gave women the right to choose their own guardian; 4) The tutor
fidiuciarius gave women the right to make a will. Whelan, Amica Pauli, 73, 74; Cotter, Womens
Authoritative Roles in Pauls Churches, 363-66; M. S. Collins, Money, Sex and Power: An
examination of the Role of Women as Patrons of the Ancient Synagogues, in Recovering the Role of
Women: Power and Authority in Rabbinic Jewish Society, (ed.) P. J. Hass (Atlanta: Scholars Press,
1992), 7-22 at 15.
33
Evidence can be seen from the inscriptions of clubs and associations praising women who built
their meeting houses and financed dinners and received public honour in the cities where their
generosity was carried out. Clemente, II Patroneiato Nei Collegis DellImpero Romano, 142-229.
Clemente suggests that of 147 inscriptions, from professional collegia in Italy, 12 have names of
women as patrons as patrona (9) and mater (3) and the woman identified as a wife (4) and daughter
(1) of a certain man. In most cases the woman was identified independently and not on behalf of her
husband. Only one inscription identifies a woman (mater) as the wife of the certain man. See also
prostates in Franz Poland, Geschichte des Griechischen, 363-366; Cotter, Womens Authority,
364.
34
Examples are CIL IX 2687 (mater collegii centonariorum); III 7505; XIV 69 (c. dendrophorum);
XIV 256 (corporis fabrum navalium). While some think the titles are purely honorific, the collegium
of Aesculapius and Hygia mentions the pater and mater as members of the collegium in some official
positions (CIL VI 10234.10-12). The similar view that mater synagogoi was purely honorific was
challenged by Brootens study followed by van der Horst (1991) and Cohen (1980). Till then the title
was interpreted with no official positions but treated as honorary. See B. J. Brooten, Women Leaders
in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and Background Issues (Brown Judaic Series, 36;
Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1982), 55-65; P. W. van der Horst, The Jews of Ancient Crete, Journal of
Jewish Studies 39 (1988), 183-200; S. J. D. Cohen, Women in the Synagogues of Antiquity
Conservative Judaism 34 (1980), 23-29.
35
Daughter: SEG 37 (1987) 1099bis (Amorion; II-III CE); IGR III 90 (Ankrya; II CE), 191 (Ankrya;
mid- II CE); MAMA VIII 455, 514-517 a-b (Aphrodiasias; II-III CE), 191; I Ephesos 234, 235, 239,
424, 424a, 1601e (late I-early II CE); Mother: IGRIII 191 (Ankyra; mid II CE); MAMA VIII 492b
(Aphrodisias; ICE); IG V. 1 499, 587, 589, 597, 608 (Sparta; early III CE); IKilikiaBM 1 27 (early III
CE); P. A. Harland, Familial Dimensions of Group Identity (II): Mothers and Fathers in Associations
and Synagogues of the Greek world JSJ 38 (2007), 57-79. I read this article from the website www.
philipharland.com, 1-16, at 4, 5 on June 2008.
88

discuss in the succeeding chapter the relevance of this material for Pauline
communities.
36

3.5. Priesthood (Greco-Roman)
In the classical Greek tradition, the existence of priestesses in service to
Greek Goddesses is well attested in some inscriptions and ancient writings.
37
There
was an assumption that the gender of the deity was associated with that of the priest,
but evidence shows that gender difference was not a hindrance to the service of the
male and female deities.
38
Their function included service for a particular deity in a
particular sanctuary, which comprises care and upkeep of the sanctuary and the
statue of the deity, the performance of rites of purification, and safeguarding the
sanctuary treasures and gifts and these services were rewarded by a small amount
of fees and a portion of the sacrifices.
39
Kraemer writes, although the majority of
priests for official Roman cults were male and organized into colleges, particularly
during the republican period, one of the most famous of all official Roman
priesthoods was held by women, that of the Vestal Virgins.
40
According to Mary

36
See C. Osiek, Diakonos and Prostatis: Womens Patronage in Early Christianity HTS 61 (2005),
347-370. R. S. Ascough raises problems for using the model of associations to understand Christian
community, especially Pauline community. R. S. Ascough, Voluntary Associations and the
Formation of Pauline Christian Communities: Overcoming the Objections in Vereine, Synagogen und
Gemeinden im kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien, (eds.) Andreas Gutsfeld und Dietrich-Alex Koch (Studies
and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity 25; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006), 149-183, at 182.
37
R. S. Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings: Womens Religions among Pagans, Jews, and
Christians in the Greco-Roman World (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), 81. Priestesses are
found in service of Demeter, Hera, Athena, Artemis, Eileithyia, Isis, Bona Dea, Cybele. For
discussion on Greek standards for women in public see J. G. Sigountos and M. Shank, Public Roles
for Women in the Pauline Church: A Reappraisal of the Evidence JETS 26 (1983), 283-295, at 288-
292.
38
Athena Polias was attended by a priest, and Dionysos, Helios, and Apollo were served by a
priestess. See R. Garland, Priests and Power in Classical Athens, in M. Beard and J. North (ed.),
Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World (London: Duckworth, 1990),73-91, at 77.
39
Kreamer, Her Share of the Blessings, 81. The status of these religious positions cannot be
generalized. The priesthood is determined by family membership in Athens, but from the 5
th
century
BCE, the criterion of selection was in connection with the gender of the particular deity (the election
was by lot and was a prestigious one since they considered priests and priestesses as being elected by
gods themselves). See also Garland, Priests, 77.
40
Kreamer, Her Share of the Blessings, 81. Plutarch has shown that the phase of the service of Vestals
was for about thirty years and after that they were permitted to marry. Plutarch, Life of Numa
Pompilius, 10. The privileges accruing to Vestal virgins were considerable, including freedom from
89

Beard, the vestals functioned like virgins, matrons and aristocratic males and they
played an important part in their symbolic position.
41

From the Hellenistic period womens cultic offices began to flourish in Greek
and Roman worship as well as in new mysteries and Roman emperor worship.
Examples include the Priestess of Athena who is recorded in an inscription (Chrysis,
IG II, 1136) from Delphi in the second century CE, who received honours for taking
part in a procession to Apollo. Tata of Aphrodisias in western Asia Minor was a
priestess of Hera and of the imperial cult, who also held the office of
stephanophorus crownbearer.
42
Her responsibilities included providing funds for
religious festivals and public entertainments, supplying oil free of charge for the
athletes who competed in public games, offering sacrifices throughout the year for
the health of the imperial family, and sponsoring banquets open to the public.
43

Women had numerous official positions in the worship of Isis. Aba of
Histiria in Thrace was high priestess of Cybele in the second century CE, and there
are other priestesses attested in the inscriptions.
44
Aba of Histiria not only looked
after the great festival of Cybele but also funded a public banquet, excelling all
previous generosity. In Hellenistic Greek cities and towns, women and men who

any male guardianship and the right to make a will and bequeath property during the lifetime of their
fathers Vestals who broke their vows of chastity during their term of office were walled up in a
small chamber furnished with a couch, a lamp, minimal food, and left to die. See Kraemer, Her Share
of the Blessings, 81, 82.
41
M. Beard, The Sexual Status of Vestal Virgins, JRS 70 (1980), 12-27, at 21.
42
Family position also played an important part in attaining priesthoods. Tata of Aphrodisias in the
second century CE (Tation, CIJ, 738) was a member of an illustrious family of the first rank. Her
inscription makes known her patrilineage and she holds the title of the mother of the city. Her
husbands status stands as a secondary thing when compared to that of her father. Similarly, Aba of
Histiria and Menodora came from prominent families. Their position and privilege depended on their
familial connections. Marital status is secondary to that of the actual position held, and the example
of Tata, whose husband held the office of stephanophorus, does not indicate that she received her
position by virtue of his. See the following page.
43
Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings, 84.
44
Kraemer, Her Share of the Blessings, 84, 223. The inscriptions are CIL 6.502; CIL 6.508; CIL
6.2257, CIL 6.2260; CIL 6.2259; CIL 14.371; CIL 14.408; CIL 10.6075; CIL 6.30972; CIL 10.6074.
90

held cultic offices paid the money for public religious festivals and entertainments,
and the costs of these functions were also massive.
Menodora is attested in inscriptions from Sillyon in Pamphylia for her
benefactions in the early third century CE (IGRR III, 800-2). She had a variety of
careers not only in religious affairs but also in civic offices such as: high priestess
of at least two emperors (probably Septimius Severus and Caracalla), priestess of
Demeter, and of all the gods, hierophant for life of the citys gods, dekaprotos,
demiourgos and gymnasiarch.
45
She also distributed money and corn to the entire
populace, 300,000 denarii to orphans and children, financed the building of a
temple, and provided numerous other benefactions.
46

Women were able to take public roles in special cases, and they were
notably wealthy. If they have their name placed before their husbands, their status
will probably be higher than their husbands. Thus, the discussion on the position
and status of women in Greco-Roman paganism helps to understand their roles in
religious leadership influencing both private and public spheres.
3.6. Jewish Synagogues
As far as the position and function of women in Jewish religious life are
concerned, we get totally diverse and conflicting portrayals, depending whether
they come from rabbinic sources or inscriptional and archaeological sources.
Rabbinic writings caricature Jewish women as those who led restricted, secluded
lives and were excluded from much of the ritual life of Jewish men especially from
the study of Torah.
47
Evidence from the Greco-Roman Diaspora suggests,

45
46
47
91

however, that at least some Jewish women played active religious, social, economic
and even political roles in the public lives of Jewish communities.
48

Brooten in the work, Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue, focussed on
women who played significant leadership roles in synagogues in the ancient world,
that include heads of the synagogue, leaders, elder, priestess, and mothers
of the synagogues, as evidenced in the inscriptions dating from the second century
BCE to the sixth century CE. They come from different locations and different
communities. Women were also involved as donors to the synagogue buildings.
49

Trebilco records that four out of fifty three inscriptions regarding donations are by
women alone and another fifteen are by women with their husbands.
50
Here, I will
deliberately limit my exploration to the leadership roles of women in the synagogues,
which seems to be at odds with the commonplace portrayal of Jewish society as
ostentatiously male centred.
3.6.1. a0rxisuna/gwgov (Head of the Synagogues)
a0rxisuna/gwgov was the title of a leading official in the synagogue and has
the primary position in the list of the officials. This official seems to be the spiritual
and intellectual leader of the synagogue and responsible for its spiritual direction
and regulation, including at times teaching the community and on other occasions
inviting someone else to preach.
51

48
49
It is evident in the inscriptions that women were donors to the synagogues. For example, Tation
from Phoecaea, donated the whole synagogue building. This inscription is unique since Tation holds
the position of proedri/a and a golden crown, which was a prominent position in the synagogue. She
was possibly a wealthy and independent woman, who was able to build a synagogue (CIJ 738; IGR
4.1327). See P. R. Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor (Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1991), 110.
50
Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 112.
51
Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 104, 105. CII 1404 mentions that the role of the heads of the
synagogue includes reading of the law and teaching of the commandments. The exhortation and
spiritual direction of the congregation is attested in Lk 13:10-17; cf. Acts 18:12-1; Justin Martyr,
Dialogue with Trypho, 137, Epiphanius, Panarion, 30.18.2. They invited members of the
congregation to preach (Acts 13:15). The synagogue heads together with the elders collected money to
92

3.6.1.1. Inscriptional Evidence
Three Greek inscriptions have been found with women bearing the title of
head of the synagogue. Though there is a strand of interpretation which takes the
title as purely honorific, the different aspects of the titles use for men as well as
women are dealt with in Brootens work on Women Leaders in the Ancient
Synagogue showing that there were presumably women leaders in the synagogue.
The three inscriptions cite the names of the women such as Rufina from Smyrna,
Ionia (CII 741; IGR IV 1452), Sophia from Crete (CII 731c) and Theopempte from
Caria (CII 756).
The inscription (CII 741; IGR IV 1452) with Rufina titled a0rxisuna/gwgov
is dated probably around the second or third century CE.
9Roufei~na 0Ioudai/a a0rxisuna/gwgov kateskeu/asen to\ e0nso/rion toi~v
a0peleuqe/roij kai\ qre/masin mhdeno\v a!lou e0cousi/an e1xontov qa/yai
tina/. ei0 de/ tiv tolmh/sei, dw/sei tw|> i9erwta/tw| tamei/w| (dhna/ria)
a0f< kai\ tw~| e!qnei tw~n 0Ioudai/wn (dhna/ria) a<0. Tau/thv th~v
e0pigrafh~v to\ a0nti/grafon a0pokei~tai ei0v to\ a0rxei~on.

Rufina, a Jewess, a head of the synagogue, built this tomb for her freed
slaves and the slaves raised in her house. No one else has the right to
bury anyone (here). If someone should dare to do, he or she will pay
1,500 denars to the sacred treasury and 1,000 denars to the Jewish
people. A copy of this inscription has been placed in the (public)
archives.

From the inscription, it is clear that Rufina was a woman of affluence, who
had the means to build tomb for her freed slaves and the slaves who were raised in
her house. This tomb may be that of her slaves, to whom Rufina would have been a
patron.
52
It is not clear from the inscription whether she was married or not, since
there is no evidence of her marital status. This type of inscription is quite usual in

be sent to the patriarch (Cod. Theod. 16.8.14, 17) and were likely the leaders of the congregation. See
Brooten, Women Leaders, 28-29.
52
Brooten, Women Leaders, 10. Brooten suggests, this grave, the persons to be buried in it, the
marble plaque with its official legalistic language, and the high fine to be imposed all point to the
wealth and influence of this woman.
93

the Jewish as well as the non-Jewish communities of the Asia Minor. There are two
other Jewish inscriptions from Smyrna which refer to office holders.
53
Rufina was a
wealthy and independent Jewess, able to handle business matters of her time. She
was possibly a member of a leading family of Smyrna. She was an active head of the
synagogue in the whole sense of the title for which Trebilco suggests reasons such
as her administrative and managerial skill, her educational qualification and her
economic background.
54

The second inscription (CII 731c 4
th
or 5
th
Century CE) mentions Sophia of
Gortyn as elder and head of the synagogue of Kisamos.
Sofi/a lortuni/a,
presbute/ra ke\ a0rxisunagw/gissa Kisa/mou e1nqa.
Mnh/mh dike/av i/v e9w/na. 0Amh/n
Sophia of Gortyn, elder and head of the synagogue of Kisamos (lies) here,
the memory of the righteous one for ever. Amen.
It is interesting to note two roles elder and the head of the synagogue
mentioned in the inscription with the feminine forms (presbute/ra,
a0rxisunagw/gissa) of the title. As we shall see below, the different opinions
regarding the title include that the titles were received as honorary through her
husband, who would be presbu/terov and a0rxisuna/gwgov. Another view
compares with that of the other Jewish women titles such as a0rxhgissa, i9e/risa,
a0rxisuna/gwgov, and presbute/ra. The marital status of Sophia is not mentioned
in the inscription and therefore it is unlikely that she received the title from her

53
The inscriptions are CII 739, an inscription in which Irenopoios is described as an elder and father
of the tribe and the son of the elder; CII 740 another inscription from the same synagogue. Another
inscription included the name of the scribe of a Jewish community in Smyrna. The titles such as elder,
scribe, father of the tribe were used in the inscriptions. The first two are common titles whereas the
father of the tribe is possibly equivalent to the father of the synagogue. See Brooten, Women Leaders,
11.
54
94

husband. It is obvious in the inscription that she was an important figure in the
Jewish community of Kisamos. She was an elder and the head of the synagogue as
well.
The third inscription (CII 756 4
th
or 5
th
century CE) reads: [From Th]
eopempte, head of the synagogue, and her son Eusebios. It is unsure whether the
inscription is funerary or donative, since it is carved into the top of a white marble
quadrangular post. The inscription shows that Theopempte, the head of the
synagogue, and her son are donors of the post. One can understand that she would
be wealthy enough to make the donation with her son, who could be an adult or
infant. Her husbands name is not mentioned but the sons name being mentioned
points to the fact that she was married. Her son did not possess a title. If his father
had a title, it would have been carried on to the son. The picture that emerges from
this inscription is that she was the donor of the synagogue and the head of the
synagogue as well.
3.6.1.2. Role Identification
There are different lines of interpretation regarding the role of women
synagogue heads, i.e., whether the title is purely honorific
55
or whether women
played an equal role to that of the male officials.
56

55
See E. Schrer, History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ, Geza Vermes, Fergus
Millar, Mathew Black and Pamela Vermes (rev. and ed.) (2 Vols. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1973-
1979), 2:435.
56
There is also literary evidence from Jewish, pagan and Christian sources. The New Testament gives
evidence of the head of synagogues (Mark 5:22, 35, 36, 38; cf. Luke 8:49). Cf. Luke 8:41, a!rxwn
th~v sunagwgh~v, whereas in Matt 9:18, 23 a!rxwn is used. There would be a question whether these
titles denote the same functions. Another question that comes to our mind through the Jairos passage
is whether there was more than one head of the synagogue since Jairos is mentioned as one of the
heads of the synagogue (Mark 5:22). Luke 13:10-17 gives an idea of the role of the head of the
synagogue as preventing the people from moving away from Torah. Acts of the Apostles also gives
reference to the head of the synagogue inviting apostles to give sermons in the synagogue, which
possibly shows a leadership role (Acts 13:15). In Pauls missionary activity in Corinth (Acts 18:1-17),
we meet two synagogue officials, Crispus (v.8) who had become a believer in Christ, and Sosthenes,
who had not (v.17).
95

The common perception is that it was an entirely honorific title and had no
responsibility involved in it. It is assumed that the title had come through the
husband, who was an a0rxisuna/gwgov. However, there are weaknesses in this
presupposition for women bearing honorary titles, because out of the three
inscriptions, two did not give any evidence that they were married; the Rufina and
Theopempte inscriptions give an impression that they are fairly independent in
controlling funds, household and business affairs; in the inscriptions, where wives
of synagogue heads are named (CII 265, 553, 744), they do not in fact bear the title
of their husbands.
57
Therefore the thesis that the title is purely honorary in the case
of women and functional in the case of men is unlikely.
Brootens suggestion is highly likely. On the basis of the evidence, the role of
the female synagogue head is the same as in the case of their male counterparts
i.e., that they were active in administration and exhortation.
58
Their responsibility
possibly includes women but not exclusively so. They possibly had administrative
capacity as in the case of Rufina, administering her whole household.
How did these women acquire official status? It is understood from the Rufina
inscription that she was possibly wealthy and a member of a wealthy, leading
Roman family. Theopempte also had funds. Sophia fulfilled two roles as elder and
a0rxisuna/gwgov possibly indicating her involvement in the matters of the

The early rabbinic sources such as m. Yoma 7.1 refer to the head of the synagogue, where the
context is reading from the Torah on Yom Kippur. Other evidence includes t. Meg. 4. 21 (Zuck. 227);
b. Pesah 49b; y. Ber. 6a.28-29.
Several fourth-century laws indicate that the head of the synagogue was one of the important official
positions in the synagogue. Examples, Cod. Theod. 16. 8. 4; Cod. Theod. 16. 8. 13; Cod. Theod. 16. 8.
14. Further evidence can be obtained from Patristic fathers such as Justin Martyr, Dialogue with
Trypho, 137, Epiphanius of Salamis (c. 315-403) and Palladius, Dialogue on the Life of John
Chrysostom. Pagan sources also used this title. In Flavius Vopiscus Life of Saturninus 8, Scripores
Historiae Augustae 3.398-399, the emperor Alexander Severus was called the Syrian
a0rxisuna/gwgov by his opponents. This evidence makes it clear that the title was well known in the
ancient world.
57
Brooten, Women Leaders, 30.
58
96

synagogue. Therefore their active involvement in the synagogue (or par with that of
the male officials) and wealthy family connections may be the factors that helped
them to assume leadership roles.
3.6.2. a0rxh/gissa (Leader)
The Peristeria inscription gives evidence for a woman leader. It was first
published in 1937 from Thebes in Phthiotis in Thessaly (CII 696b): Mnh~ma
Peristeri/av a0rxhgi/siv (Tomb of Peristeria, leader).
Another inscription CII 731g reads (Upe\ r eu0xh~v 0Iakwb a0rxigou~ pinnwna~
(In accordance with a vow of Jacob, president, the setter of pearls). These
inscriptions date c. 4
th
/5
th
CE. The title a0rxhgo/v occurs only once in Jewish
inscriptions and principalis is its Latin parallel. Example, CII 681- Ioses arcisna et
principalis filius Maximini Pannoni sibi et Qyriae Coniugi sui vivo suo memoria
dedicavit. (Ioses, head of the synagogue and leader, son of Maximinus Pannonus,
dedicated this monument, while still alive, for his wife and himself.). Due to the lack
of context, in order to understand the meaning of a0rxh/gissa, a study of its use in
different literature is required.
3.6.2.2. Literary Evidence
a0rxhgo/v in ancient literature functions as an adjective and as a noun. As an
adjective, it means beginning, originating, primary leading, chief, and as a
noun, means founder, ancestral hero, prince, chief, first cause, originator,
and originating power.
59
The word has meanings as human ancestor of a tribe or
family or a leader.
60

59
G. Delling, a0rxhgo/v TDNT 1, 487-88; see also MM, 81.
60
The ancestor of a tribe or family is the sense in Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics 8.12.4, whereas
leader is the sense in Eusebius, De ecclesiastica theologia 2.9; Brooten, Women Leaders, 37.
97

LXX uses the term to translate a number of Hebrew words, such as rosh in
the sense of military, political or clan leader (e.g. Exod 6:14; Num 13:3; 14:4; 25:4;
Deut 33:21); qasin in the sense of chief, ruler (Judg 11:6, 11; Isa 3:6,7) and sar in
the sense of prince, official, governor (Judg 5:15; 1 Chron 26:26; Neh 2:9; Isa 30:4).
Josephus uses a0rxhgo/v five times, three times in the sense of originator,
author, and twice in the sense of ancestor, founder of the race.
61
Philo uses it with
the meaning of leader, chief.
62
The New Testament speaks of Christ as the
a0rxhgo/v, originator of life (Acts 3:15), of salvation (Heb 2:10) and of faith (Heb
12:2) and leader and saviour (Acts 5:31).
Therefore the three basic meanings are ancestral hero or heroine,
founder/originator, and leader/chief.
In Jewish inscriptions (CII 696b, 731g) the meaning is probably leader or chief
rather than originator. Therefore, the plausible meaning is leader, albeit Jewish titles
differed with respect to locality and it is quite difficult to decide definitely as to the
original meaning. There is a question whether a0rxhgo/v and a0rxisuna/gwgov
refers to the same position, e.g. CII 681. It is not explicitly mentioned in the
inscriptions whether a0rxhgo/v denotes the leadership role in the Jewish
community.
63

61
Josephus used a0rxhgo/v in the sense of the originator and author as of crimes (Ant. 7. 207); of
trouble (Ant. 20.136); of legal violations (Ag. Ap. 1.270) and in the sense of the ancestor or founder
(Ag. Ap. 1.71, 130).
62
Philo uses a0rxhgo/v in Leg. Alleg. 3.175; De somn. 1. 89.
63
Brooten notes whether founder might be the best translation as parallel to fatherly figures in early
Christian texts. But she thinks this is speculative and supports leader as the more likely translation.
See Brooten, Women Leaders, 38, 39.
98

3.6.3. Presbute/ra (Elder)
The title elder used for women in some Greek inscriptions has been found
(Presbute/ra/ Presbute/rhsa). There is also another inscription in which a woman
is called Presbu/tiv.
The examples are:
a) CII 731c (4
th
/5
th
CE), Sophia of Gortyn was both the head of the synagogue
as well as elder (see above).
b) CII 692 (4
th
/ 5
th
CE) Tomb of Rebeka, the elder who has fallen asleep.
c) Three Greek Inscriptions found in Apulia mention women elders, which
date from the third to the sixth centuries CE. CII 581; CIL IX 6226 Tomb of
Beronikene, elder and daughter of Ioses. Here Beronikenes father bears no title.
She is described as the daughter of her father rather than the wife of a man. Other
inscriptions include CII 590; CIL IX 6230 and CII 597; CIL 6209.
The term Presbute/ra can bear several different meanings. It denotes a
political function as the elders of Israel (Num 11:16-30; 2 Sam 3:17; 5:3; 17:4,
etc.) and/or judicial functions as the elders of the city (Deut 19:12; 21:2-9, 19-20;
2:15-21; 25:7-9). Philo and Josephus mention the gerousia of Alexandria and the
members of the gerousia are called Presbute/roi.
64
The New Testament cites
members of Sanhedrin as elders (Matt 16:21; Mark 8:31; 11:27; Luke 9:22).
The meaning of an elder is varied, and it is hard to define. The Talmud refers
to an elder as a scholar (b.Qidd. 32b). The Theodosian code (16.8.13) and Justinian
Code (Cod. Iust.1.9.15) refer to elders as synagogue officials. Another meaning is in

64
Philo (In Flacc. 74, 76, 80; Leg. ad Gaium 229) and Josephus (J.W. 7. 412).
99

equivalence to seniores and maiores. It occurs in the plural in inscriptions (CII 663,
731f, 803, 1404), and its parallel with the New Testament references is striking. In
Luke 7:3-5, the centurion considers the elders as the official representatives of the
Jewish community. The elders in the New Testament refer to the decision making
body of the church, e.g. Acts 11:30; 15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18; Jas 5:14.
The evidence in the inscriptions and the literature points to women as elders.
The function of an elder may be different in different periods as well as regions. The
elder title is sometimes used in the plural where it refers to a council of elders, and it
appears most often in a religious context, as religious functionaries.
65
But the
perception that the title for woman is honorary, the title could be received from her
husband, who was an elder, and the arguments against maintaining the honorary title
exclusively for women are discussed in the section on a0rxisuna/gwgov. That the
husbands name is not mentioned with elder women in the inscriptions reduces the
possibility of considering it as honorary. Six, possibly seven, inscriptions with
women bearing the title elder show the possibility of women fulfilling leadership
roles.
66
Therefore it is most likely that women were the members of the council of
elders; they were involved in financial matters and were also possibly seated in the
front facing the congregation like the male elders.
67

65
There are four inscriptions, which refer to elders in the plural (e.g. CII 663, 731F, 803, 1404) and
also the New Testament references to Jewish and Jewish Christian elders (Luke 7:3-5; Acts 11:30;
15:2, 4, 6, 22-23; 16:4; 21:18; Jas 5:14). The functions in the religious context can be seen in Cod.
Theod. 16.8.13: related to the worship service in Corpus Iuris Civilis, Nov. 146.1; collecting money
in the synagogue in Cod. Theod. 16.8.14; the special seating arrangements during the worship service
denote their religious function (t. Meg. 4.21).
66
67
The question can be raised as to whether women could be the full members of the judicial council;
whether women could have been scholars or could read the Bible in the synagogue. See Brooten,
Women Leaders, 55.
100

3.6.4. mh/thr sunagwgh~v (Mother of the Synagogue)
The evidence includes two Greek inscriptions with mh/thr sunagwgh~v CII
496, CII 166 (1
st
BCE - 3
rd
CE); two Latin inscriptions with the equivalent of mh/thr
sunagwgh~v CII 523, CII 639; CILV 4411; one Latin inscription with pateressa CII
606 (CIL IX 623); one inscription with mh/thr CII 619d (3
rd
6
th
CE).
68
It is
interesting to note that Verturia Paulla from Rome in the inscription CII 523 was the
mother of the two synagogues of Campus and Volumnius, which was found parallel
with CII 508 from Rome, where a father of synagogues is mentioned. Mother
(father) of the synagogue is a key term of leadership, and it is most likely to denote
their active involvement in the synagogues. Also, it is difficult to conclude that
Verturia obtained this title from her husband since no husbands name is mentioned
in the inscription, unlike the Menorah inscription CII 166 which gives the name of
the husband. It seems that she was an office holder just like a path/r sunagwgh~v.
The title pateressa is the feminine of pater. There is a question whether pateressa
and mh/thr sunagwgh~v referred to one and the same function, or whether
pateressa refers to a less official position or implies a synagogue function at all.
The title pa/thr/mh/thr is also used without the synagogue description. What
would be the implied role when it is so? Did it refer to a civic function? It is the
common title among the Jewish Venosan inscriptions. Brooten records that path/r
occurs nine times outside of our inscription while mh\thr and pateressa occur one

68
They are all from Italy, Rome (CII 523, CII 496, CII 166); Venosa (CII 606: CIL IX 6231, CII
619d, CII 619c); Venetia (CII 639; CIL V 4411). Brooten, Women Leaders, 57.
101

time each.
69
The number of occurrences of the title in the inscriptions makes clear
that the title was a significant one in the Venosan Jewish community.
There is one literary reference to Jewish mothers of the synagogue in a
Christian anti-Jewish polemic, De Altercatione Ecclesiae et Synagogae, which is a
dialogue between two matrons, synagoga and Ecclesia.
70
The mothers of the
synagogue mentioned as the outstanding women of the Jewish community attest to
the fact that the title was well-known even outside the Jewish community and shows
their leadership position. Theodosian code 16.8.4 refers to the three synagogue
officials such as priests, heads of the synagogues and fathers of the synagogues
along with all others who serve the synagogue. This fourth century law gives
evidence on the functions of the synagogue officials, although it is hard to define
their actual function and their distinguished status in the community.
71
The literary
evidence is too limited to define clearly the functions of mother/father when used
independently.
One of the interpretations about the role of mother of synagogue is gender-
biased, which holds up the theory of honorary title for women.
72
Another suggestion
was pa/thr sunagwgh~v and mh/thr sunagwgh~v were responsible to care for the
sick and dying; the former also make arrangements for the funerals, while the latter

69
Seven out of the ten inscriptions with pa/thr are named Faustinus and mh/thr in CII 6119d is
named Faustina, which probably suggests both are from the same family. See Brooten, Women
Leaders, 63. Some of the examples are CII 590, CII 599, CII 611, 612 etc.
70
The work, dated fifth century CE, is discussing a controversial point on the bestowal of the eternal
life only for the circumcised, which excludes women in general and even the mothers of the
synagogue, who are outstanding women of the Jewish community. Brooten, Women Leaders, 63.
71
Jesus refers to the title fathers in Matt 23:9. And call no one your father on earth, for you have
one father, the heavenly one, which seems to be an honorific title. There is also the prohibition to call
any one rabbi (vs.7-8). The title abba occurs as an honorific title in the rabbinic sources.
72
See S. Krauss, Synagogale Altertmer (Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1922), 166.
102

had responsibility for providing money for poor brides.
73
Some find the title must be
an active role in administration, while some find parallel roles with that of
patronage.
74
They may have some honorary roles in directing charitable works and
assistance in the community.
However, the evidence shows clearly that women bore the title of mother of
the synagogue or mother. Although the function is not clearly defined, it seems that
they held some administrative position in the synagogue.
3.6.5. i9erei/a/i9e/risa (Priestess)
Three ancient Jewish inscriptions have the title of i9erei/a/i9e/risa for women
ranging from first century BCE to fourth century CE, and those were found in Tell
el-Yahudiyyeh in Lower Egypt, in Beth Shearim in Galilee, and in Rome.
75

They are a) CII 1514 (SEG 1 (1923) no. 574)
Marin i9e/risa xrhsth\ pasi/file kai\ a!lupe kai\ filogi/twn
O Marin, priest, good and friend to all, causing pain to no one and friendly to
your neighbours, farewell! (She died at the age of) approximately fifty years, in the
third year of Caesar (Augustus), on the thirteenth day of Payni (June 7, 28 BCE).
Brooten writes C. C. Edgar, who first published the inscription in 1922, thought
that i9e/risa was the name of Marions father; whether it is an indeclinable noun or
whether this is a genitive in a I do not know.
76
But Hans Lietzmann assumed it to
be i9e/risa, Priestess.
77
Women bearing the title i9e/risa are interpreted as not in a

73
Brooten, Women Leaders, 64, 65.
74
75
76
Brooten, Women Leaders, 73. Brooten cites from C. C. Edgar, Annales du Service des Antiquits de
1 Egypte 22 (1922) 13, no. 25.
77
Hans Lietzmann, Kleine Schriften, ed. Kurt Aland; 3 Vols.; Untersuchungen zur Geschichte der
Altchristlichen Literatur 67, 68, 74; Berlin: Akademie-Verlag, 1958-1962), 1.442; Brooten, Women
Leaders,73. The name Marion occurs in Greek Inscriptions such as SEG 17 (1960) 818 (Cyrenaica),
SEG 17 (1960) 819.
103

real sense performing the actual function of priestess in the Jewish community but
rather belonging to the family of priests, that of Aarons family.
78

b) CII 315 (c. 3
rd
- 4
th
CE) from the Monteverde catacomb in the Via
Portuensis. Enqa/de xite Gaudentia i9e/risa
Here lies Gaudentia, Priest, (aged) 24 years. In Peace be her sleep! The
name Guadentia appears in another inscription CII 314 from the same place; she is a
daughter of a man named Oklatios. Galudentis (male form of the name) occurs in
CII 316. Inscriptions with men (possibly five) bearing the title i9ereu/v are also found
from the Monteverde catacomb.
c) CII 1007 Sara quga/thr Naimiav mh/thr i9erei/av ku/ra Mar[ei]hv
[e!n]q|a| k[ei~tai?]
Sara, daughter of Naimia, mother of the priest, Lady Maria, lies here.
This inscription is dated to the fourth century CE. Miriam has been interpreted
as a kohenet, wife of a kohen.
Scholars interpret i9e/risa as probably designating the wife or daughter of a
i9ereu/v and as a member of the priestly family since presumably there is no priestess
in the Jewish system.
79
The three possible interpretations regarding this are: firstly,
i9erei/a/i9e/risa is simply the Greek equivalent of kohenet (wife of a priest); secondly,
i9erei/a/i9e/risa in the inscriptions means the priest in the cultic sense; thirdly, it
denotes a Synagogue function. Kohenet is not a biblical but is a rabbinic term.
80
The

78
Brooten, Women Leaders, 74. In Tell el-Yahuddiyyeh, there was a Jewish Temple founded by
Onias IV during the time of Ptolemy VI Philometor and Cleopatra (181-146 BCE), who because of
the Maccabean revolt was unable to continue the Jerusalem High priesthood.
79
See E. Goodenough, Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period (13 vols. Bollingen Series 37;
Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1953-1968), 1: 253-257; see also Brooten, Women Leaders, 78,
79.
80
A man becomes a kohen by birth but woman becomes a kohen by birth and by marriage. The Old
Testament refers to the priests daughter having rights to eat priestly offerings (Lev 22:12-13). The
Holiness Code speaks of the priests daughters and wives (Lev 21:7, 9). It is said in Lev 22:13 that the
104

passages referring to kohenet show the rights and privileges of a kohenet and how
she loses it and how weak it is when compared to the priestly privileges of a man.
Kohenet passages do not speak about leadership in a congregation or cultic
functions, but rather the rights of becoming a member of a priestly class.
The possibility of women performing religious functions in ancient Israel
81

poses a question regarding the masculine nature of the Israelite priesthood. Brooten
suggests that there are scraps of scattered evidence which could indicate a more
varied historical reality than we are accustomed to imagine.
82
She also suggests that
the cultic or priestly functions may include singing psalms, providing musical
accompaniment, performing priestly blessings, examining the priestly offerings and
animals and performing sacrifices.
83

The function of a priest as bestowing priestly blessings and reading the Torah
in the synagogue can be seen in M. Git 5:8 (cf. Philo of Alexandria, Hypothetica
7.13; Philo suggests that the priest has preference to the elder). The Theodosian code
(16.8.4) gives preference to the priests as the synagogue functionaries. Is it possible
for the women to perform the same functions as that of the male counterparts? It is
unlikely that the women in the inscriptions with the title were forbidden the

daughter of a priest could lose her privileges in a priestly family by marrying a non-priest. The
Mishnah lists a number of occasions and reasons when a bat kohen loses her right to eat of the priestly
heave-offering (m. Yebam 7:4-6; m. Sota 3.7 (priestliness of a kohenet implies less than the
priestliness of a kohen); m. Sota 3:7 (the priestliness of a woman was much more fragile and open to
profanation than that of a man). See Brooten, Women Leaders, 78.
81
The two texts that allude to priestesses in the ancient Israel are Exod 38:8 (hassobot -ministering
women) and 1 Sam 2:22 (ministering women). There are differing opinions about the women who
ministered at the tent of meeting as house keepers in Exod 38:8 and 1 Sam 2:22 or doing menial
duties, which is quite unlikely and Brooten regards this as over interpretation. See Brooten, Women
Leaders, 85. The other possible suggestions for priestesses in the Bible are Zipporah, who performed
the ritual of circumcision on her son (Exod 2:16, 21; 4:24-26); Jael the wife of Heber the Kenite (Judg
5:24); and Miriam, who is called a prophet, who led the Israelite women in dancing and worship
(Exod 15:20-21; Mic 6:4).
82
83

105

functions of the priests; it seems that they received the title by virtue of their rights
of the priestly descent and perhaps due to their donations to the synagogue.
There are also inscriptions and Papyri referring to i9ereu/v dating from the first
century BCE to the third century CE (CII 346; CII 347; CII 355; CII 375). Women
were possibly involved in cultic functions. They might have performed priestly
duties and performed leadership roles in the congregation in the Jewish synagogues.
3.7. Conclusion
It is clear that some women enjoyed considerable freedom and independence
in the socio-political, religious and cultural context of the Greco-Roman world.
Although wealth and status were assumed as the rationale for assuming leadership,
the evidence shows women had skills and potential to become lawyers, politicians,
magistrates, patrons of associations, priestess of the cult and leaders of the
synagogues. Women bore titles the same as that of men in the synagogues as heads
of the synagogues, elders, priestesses, leaders, and mothers of the synagogue. Most
of the references are not from the first century but from later centuries. As we have
found evidence from the later centuries, with caution, we could say that Jewish
culture is not opposed to womens leadership.
On the one hand, it is argued that those titles are honorary for women; on the
other hand, there are convincing claims that they are not honorary titles. The
examples of women, who were not mentioned in relation to their husbands in the
inscriptions, argue against the dependent character (to their husbands) of women
holding those titles. Although their function is not clearly defined in the inscriptions,
these titles possibly denote leadership roles, administrative capacity and
organizational character. Some of the titles used for the women in the Pauline
churches are similar to that of the Greco-Roman world. Although the exact nature of
106

these leadership roles remains obscure, it possibly implies a functional similarity,
although in a different context. This provides a clear vantage point in our analysis of
the roles of the women in Romans 16 and their contribution to the Pauline
communities, which will be the task of the next chapter.
107

Chapter 4
Women in Romans 16:1-16
4.1. Introduction
Among Pauline letter closings, Romans 16 contains more greetings as well
as more personal names than any other, including both men and women. Moreover,
they are greeted due to their activities in regard to the church and to Paul. The
greeting formula and the rhetoric of the passage support mutual relations.
The passage (16:1-16) seems to be Pauls acknowledgement of some peoples
hard work and their roles in relation to the Roman believers and to himself. Women
appreciated for their roles apparently denote his attitude to women in church and
ministry. The tone of his speech to restrict their involvement in the church
elsewhere in his letters (1 Cor 11:1-16; cf. 1 Cor 14:34, 35) strikes a notable
dissonance with what we find in Romans 16, where he appreciates their work. This
chapter consists of the detailed analysis of those women named and portrayed with
descriptive phrases that help us understand the roles they played in the Pauline
mission as well as in the Roman church.
The major focus of this chapter is to deduce the leadership roles of women and
the implication of Pauls mutuality model through his rhetoric. Thus, the roles of
women are discussed: firstly, the role of Phoebe; secondly, Prisca; thirdly, Junia;
fourthly, hardworking members: Mary, Persis, Tryphoena and Tryphosa; finally
other members: Rufus mother, Nereus sister and Julia.
4.1 The Role of Phoebe
Rom 16:1, 2
v. 1. 2uvioqi t uiv 1oiqv qv otiqv qov, ouoov [|oi] io|ovov
q t||iqoio q tv Kty_ptoi,
108

v. 2. ivo ouqv pootqot tv |upio oio ov oyiov |oi opooqt
ouq tv o ov uov _pqq poyoi |oi yop ouq poooi oiiov
tytvqq |oi tou ouou.
I commend to you our sister Phoebe, a deacon of the church at Cenchreae, so
that you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in
whatever she may require from you, for she has been a benefactor of many and of
myself as well (NRSV).
It has been widely accepted that Romans 16:1, 2 is a letter of introduction for
Phoebe to the Romans. Although the role of Phoebe in relation to the Romans is not
very explicit, the social and theological role of Phoebe in Cenchreae can be clearly
deduced from the passage. It is probable that Phoebe was a Gentile Christian, since
her name shows connections to pagan mythology.
1
Her home town is Cenchreae and
she is the io|ovo of the church of Cenchreae,
2
and poooi of many as well as
Paul. Prima facie, Rom 16:1, 2 appears as a letter of recommendation for Phoebe,
but one may be able to pick up some hidden motives like recommendation for Paul
himself, or an intention for the Spanish mission or to prepare ground for the visit of
Paul. What is the importance of the relationship between Phoebe and Paul? What is
the significance of the descriptive phrases used for her? Why is she recommended to
the Romans? What is her expected mission, as portrayed in the epistle to the
Romans?

1
The mythical Phoebe was the daughter of Heaven and Earth, the wife of Coeus, mother of Leto and
the grandmother of Apollo and Artemis. Fitzmyer, Romans, 729.
2
Cenchreae was the eastern port of Corinth. Six possible towns are known with the names of
Cenchreae. Fitzmyer lists the towns: 1) a place in Argeia in the eastern Peloponnesus; 2) a town in
Troas in Asia Minor; 3) a town near Lindos on the island of Rhodes; 4) a place near the town of
Mitylene on the island of Lesbos; 5) a place near Lampsakos in the Troas; and 6) one of the two ports
of Corinth. Cenchreae is the port of Corinth (situated seven kilometres southeast of Corinth, on the
Saronic Gulf, serving trade with Asia), and is associated with Pauls mission. See Fitzmyer, Romans,
730.
109

The aim of this section is to analyse the roles of Phoebe and her significance
in the Pauline mission. I will deal with the titles io|ovo and poooi used for
Phoebe, her contribution to the Spanish mission (as proposed by R. Jewett), and the
relation of reciprocity as evident in the structure and content of the passage, in order
to deduce the role of Phoebe in the letter to the Romans.
4.2.1. Lio|ovo
The role of Phoebe as io|ovo has long been a subject of debate. Lio|ovo
generally expresses the concept of serving.
3
Lio|ovto has the special quality of
indicating very personally the service rendered to another.
4
Although it denotes
generally the concept of serving, Paul in his letters uses the term with special
meaning in relation to the Church (t||iqoio).
5
Of all the uses, only Rom 16:1
designates a woman as io|ovo of a church, which is unique as well as
noteworthy. It is unique because Phoebe is the only woman named with this title by
Paul. Different renderings will help us to figure out the original meaning of the title
used by Paul in relation to Phoebe. The use of io|ovo in relation to the church
could denote the function of a minister. Here, I will attempt to analyse the noun
io|ovo in order to find out in what sense Paul used it in Rom 16:1, to signify the
role of Phoebe in regard to the church of Cenchreae. Therefore, I will analyse the
terminology and the different notions in the Pauline Epistles, its wider use (New

3
Other Greek words which have the notion of serving are ouituo, tpotuo, ioptuo,
uqptto. ouituo means to serve as a slave with a stress on subjection, tpotuo expresses
the willingness for service, ioptuo means to serve for wages, which also connotes performing
religious and cultic duties. H. W. Beyer, io|ovt o, io|ovio, io|ovo, TDNT 2, 81. uqptto
denotes to act under instruction, in a sense of an assistant, servant, or an inferior officer. LSJ, 179,
315, 407, 736.
4
Beyer, io|ovto, 81.
5
Paul (and the New Testament writers) preferred to use the io|ovio word group to speak of service
or ministry rather than the terms office or rule (op_q), honour (iq) or power (tio), which denote
positions of ecclesiastical office.
110

Testament, Greek literature and Judaism), and finally the function of Phoebe as
io|ovo of the church of Cenchreae.
4.2.1.1. Lio|ovo in Pauline Epistles
Paul uses the concrete noun io|ovo, the abstract noun io|ovio and the
verb io|ovto to address different contexts and designate individuals as well. In
this section, the discussion is limited to the undisputed letters of Paul, Colossians
and Ephesians.
6

The verb io|ovto is used in relation to Paul himself (Rom 15:25; 2 Cor 3:3;
8:19-20) and Onesimus (Phlm 13). In Rom 15:25, Paul expresses that he is going to
minister to the saints (io|ovov oi oyioi), which is important to our discussion
because Phoebes ministry is also in relation to the saints in Cenchreae.
He uses the abstract noun io|ovio in a range of contexts and in relation to a
variety of individuals. It includes himself (Rom 11:13; 15:31; 2 Cor 4:1; 5:18; 6:3; 2
Cor 11:8); Stephanas and his household (1 Cor 16:15); Archippus (Col 4:17);
Roman Christians (Rom 12:7); Corinthian Christians (1 Cor 12:5); Christians in
general (Eph 4:12); the ministry of death and condemnation (2 Cor 3:7, 9); the
ministry of the Spirit (2 Cor 3:8); and the relief aid in the form of the collection (2
Cor 8:4; 9:1, 12-13).
It is interesting that 1 Cor 16:15 talks about the service of the household of
Stephanas to the saints.
7
Service to the saints implies service to a group of people
(gathered together as a church) and is probably related to a leadership role. Early
Christianity regarded all important activity with regard to the up-building of the

6
Although the authenticity of Colossians and Ephesians is widely disputed, I assume those to be
Pauline or very closely connected to Paul, since they have similar themes and structure to the
undisputed letters.
7
Other instances where io|ovio is related to the saints are Rom 15:31 (my service in Jerusalem may
be acceptable to the saints); 2 Cor 8:4 (the fellowship of ministering to the saints); 1 Cor 9:1
(concerning the ministering to the saints); Eph 4:12 (for equipping of the saints for the work of the
ministry).
111

community as io|ovio (Eph 4:11f).
8
Paul describes ioiptoti io|oviov and
ioiptoti _opiooov (1 Cor 12:4, 5).
9
The different services in the early church
are being performed by different members of the community and are rendered to the
same Lord. Lio|ovio is placed between poqtio and ioo|oiio (Rom 12:7).
It also denotes obligations and responsibilities in the community.
Moreover, the concrete noun io|ovo occurs frequently in the Pauline
letters to denote different functions in the context of t||iqoio. It is used to denote
Paul himself (1 Cor 3:5, 6; Eph 3:7; Col 1:23, 25); Apollos (1 Cor 3:5); Tychicus
(Eph 6:21; Col 4:7); Epaphras (Col 1:7); Phoebe (Rom 16:1); the Philippian deacons
(Phil 1:1); the false apostles (2 Cor 11:15, 23); the Roman authorities (Rom 13:4);
and Christ (Rom 15:8; Gal 2:17). They are described in relation to God (2 Cor 6:4);
Christ (2 Cor 11:23; Col 1:7); the church (Col 1:25); the new covenant (2 Cor 3:6);
righteousness (2 Cor 11:5); and the Gospel (Eph 3:7; Col 1:23).
The opinion that the word group denotes humble service of other people is
criticised by Collins. He argues that that the term denotes a task of carrying
messages, emphasizing the notion of an agent or messenger in non-Christian sources
and the same idea can be seen in the New Testament use of the term too. He argues
that the words io|ovo, io|ovio, io|ovto do not speak directly of attitude
like lowliness but express concepts about undertakings for another, be that God or
(hu)man, master or friend,
10
that io|ovio in the New Testament is a task entrusted
by divine authority.

8
Beyer, io|ovio, 87.
9
Different charismas are for the common good and for the up-building of the body of Christ. Pauls
account of ministries shows no evidence for only one group exercising or controlling all ministries in
the early church; rather the responsibility for ministry or service was shared by different groups
within the community.
10
J. N. Collins, Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources (Oxford: University Press, 1990), 194.
See also Robert Hannaford, The Representative and Relational Nature of Ministry and The Renewal
of the Diaconate, in The Ministry of Deacon: Ecclesiological Explorations (Uppsala: NEC, 2000),
245. Georgi also shares the same opinion that io|ovio refers to the service performed by those
112

Who are the beneficiaries of io|ovto? The beneficiaries of io|ovto are
the members of the community. It affects the life of a community in its entirety.
Paul specially mentions the beneficiaries as the saints in general or a church in
particular. The verb denotes that the benefactor specified in each context plays an
important role in the particular community or congregation.
I would like to discuss selected Pauline passages such as 1 Cor 16:15; Phil
1:1; Col 4:17 and 4:7, and Rom 16:1 which I consider as vital to my discussion on
Phoebe.
11
I have selected these passages for several reasons: a) the individuals or the
group mentioned are the associates of Paul in ministry; b) their contribution is to the
community of saints; 3) they are mentioned as io|ovo or otherwise identified by
their service.
Stephanas and his household have devoted themselves to the service
(io|ovio) of the saints (1 Cor 16:15). According to Banks, Stephanas appears as a
co-worker in the founding of the church.
12
Devoted for work should be
understood in the sense of set themselves aside for work.
Archippus service (io|ovio, Col 4:17) denotes the special act of service
of a io|ovo, though it could not be equated to the later technical sense of
deaconate.
13
io|ovo denoting a title for a special function in the developing
constitution of the church is found first in Phil 1:1 (ouv tio|ooi |oi
io|ovoi), where Paul sends greetings to all the saints in Philippi. It is notable that

whom God has chosen to be messengers; see D. Georgi, The Opponents of Paul in Second
Corinthians (SNTW; Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1987), 27-32; A. D. Clarke, Serve the Community of
the Church: Christians as Leaders and Ministers (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 239.
11
See for more discussion on the ministry in the New Testament, see A. Hentschel, Diakonia im
Neuen Testament: Studien zur Semantik unter besonderer Bercksichtigung der Rolle von Frauen
(Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2007), 90-137. Rom 16:1 is discussed as a separate section, see 4.2.1.7.
12
Banks, Pauls Idea of Community, 164; I. H. Marshall and D. A. Hagner, 1 Corinthians (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 1339. See also S. Schreiber, Arbeit mit der Gemeinde (Rom16:6, 12). Zur
versunkenen Mglichkeit der Gemeindeleitung durch Frauen, NTS 46 (2000), 204-226, at 214-217.
13
J. D. G. Dunn, The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the Greek Text
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996), 288.
113

deacons are greeted with the overseers (tio|ooi)
14
and named after them. The
question is how these offices are integrated or co-ordinated. Although it is difficult
to determine the specific duties of deacons and overseers, it is implausible that both
denote different duties of the same person. Some scholars suggest these titles are
functional rather than titular, thus describing someone who serves others rather
than a title denoting leadership.
15
Elsewhere Paul refers to church workers without
referring to an office (Rom 12:8; Gal 6:6; 1 Thess 5:12). However, as OBrien
suggests, with Beyer and others, he has in view particular members of the
congregation who are specifically described and known by these two titles;
otherwise the addition seems to be meaningless and they have special, self-evident
authority.
16
Best rightly argues that the two groups mentioned particularly (with the
saints) suggest a distinction between ordinary believers and ministers as they are
particularly mentioned.
17

Ephaphras (Col 1:7) and Tychicus (Col 4:7; Eph 6:21) are specially called
io|ovo. Epaphras is ouvouio of the apostle and io|ovo ou Xpioou (Col
1:7). Tychicus is io|ovo tv Kupio (Eph 6:21; Col 4:7). Dunn suggests that the
term may describe an individuals sustained commitment like Pauls co-worker and
not the title of a defined office.
18
But as Pauls fellow worker, the person probably
shared the responsibilities of Paul and had an effective participation in ministry.

14
Lightfoot, Epistle to the Philippians, 82.
15
G. D. Fee, Pauls Letter to the Philippians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 69.
16
P. T. OBrien, The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text (Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1991), 48; Beyer, io|ovio, 616; M. Silva, Philippians (Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2005), 40, 41.
17
E. Best, Bishops and Deacons: Phil 1:1 SE 4 (1968), 371-376 at 372-374; O Brien, Philippians,
49.
18
Dunn, Colossians and Philemon, 65, 272.
114

4.2.1.2. Lio|ovo in the New Testament (other than Pauline Literature
19
)
Service in the NT has a special significance as far as Jesus life and ministry
are concerned. He bases his teaching on the commandment of loving ones
neighbour and that the attitude of serving is essential to being a disciple. He taught
and practised service which is sacrificial and self-denying, which are the virtues of
the kingdom of God.
Lio|ovto is used with the meaning to wait at table (Lk 17:8; Jn 12:2; Lk
12:37; Lk 22:26).
20
It is used in a sense to supervise a meal (Acts 6:2). It also
means in a broader sense to be serviceable, which includes many different
activities such as provision for bodily sustenance. The purpose of the coming of the
Son of Man is not to be ministered but to minister (Mk 10:45). Moreover, io|ovtiv
denotes the service to the community (cf. Heb 6:10). The charismata are divided
into ministry of the word and ministry of deed (1 Pet 4:10, 11; cf. 1 Pet 1:10-11).
Lio|ovo specifies the waiter at a meal (Jn 2:5, 9) and the servant of a master (Mt
22:13).
4.2.1.3. Lio|ovo in the Pastoral Letters
The deaconate related to the episcopate is also found in 1 Tim 3:1f; a list of
requirements for an overseer (vv.1-7), followed by those for a deacon (vv.8-13). A
specific group is later assigned to be deacons and possibly used in a technical sense,
which means the function integrated with the office.
21
The lack of reference to
teaching or authority in the list of qualifications of deacons does not imply that their

19
The Pastoral letters are discussed below, since they have a special reference to the role and function
of the deaconate, although it is debated whether they represent a later development and are deutero-
Pauline.
20
Lio|ovti v is also used to describe Marthas care (Lk 10:40); Peters mother-in laws service (Mt
1:31) and angels ministering to Jesus (Mk 1:13; Mt 4:11). See G. Lohfink, Weibliche Diakone im
Neuen Testament, in J. Blank et al. (eds.) Die Frau Im Urchristentum (QD 95; Freiburg: Herder,
1983), 320-338; Philsy, Diakonia of Women in the New Testament IJT 32 (1983), 110-118.
21
I. H. Marshall and P. H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The Pastoral Epistles
(Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1999), 489.
115

responsibilities are limited to tasks of practical needs; rather to become the effective
leaders in their household points strongly to their responsibility in the church (v.9).
22

4.2.1.4. Lio|ovo in Extra Biblical Greek literature
Lio|ovto is first found in contemporary Greek in Herodotus with a meaning
to wait at table (cf. Aristophanes Acharnenses 1015ff; Diodorus Siculus V. 28, 4;
Athenaeus of Naucratis IX, 21). In particular, it means to taste or to direct a
marriage feast and more generally to provide or care for, which is often used as
the work of a woman (Athenaeus of Naucratis IX 20, Dion of Chrysostomus
Orationes 7, 65; Sophocles Philoctetes 285f, Plato Leges VII 805e).
23
Based on the
above meanings, the comprehensive meaning is to serve (Herodotus IV, 154, P.
Oxy II, 275, 10). Greeks consider serving as of undignified, lowly and inferior
status.
4.2.1.5 . Lio|ovo in Judaism
In the Jewish tradition, the master-servant relationship is used to describe
the God- human relationship. Lio|ovtiv is used by Philo with a meaning to serve
or to wait at a table (Vit. Cont. 70; cf. Vit. Cont. 75). Josephus uses it with three
meanings such as to wait at table (Ant. 11.163); to serve with a notion to obey (Ant.
17.140); and to render priestly services (Ant. 7. 365).
24

4.2.1.6 Lio|ovo in Inscriptional Evidence
There are extant inscriptions citing female io|ovoi of cultic organisations
in the non-literary sources from Ephesus.
25
It is also interesting to note that an
inscription from the fourth century recognizes a lady called Sophia, who is

22
I disagree with Beyers suggestion that the primary functions of deacons are those pertaining to
practical needs and inferior to that of overseers. Beyer, io|ovto, 90. Acts (6) gives a notion
whether deacons are selected to do the practical service rather than the ministry of the word.
However the origin of the deaconate is not to be found in Acts 6, but in relation to the episcopate.
23
Beyer, io|ovto, 82.
24
See for more discussion Beyer, io|ovto, 82.
25
IG 111, 2. x. 3527; SEG 425; Guarducci, EG 1V. 345-47; Guarducci EG 1V. 368-70.
116

described in four ways; a second Phoibe, ouiq, vuq of Christ and io|ovo as
well (Guarducci EG 1V. 445).
26
The title second Phoibe seems to be an allusion to
Phoebe in Rom 16:1. There are other women mentioned by the title io|ovo,
27

which is an evidence of women with this title.
4.2.1.7. Phoebe as Lio|ovo (Rom 16:1)
In Rom 16:1, Phoebe is designated the io|ovo of the church of
Cenchreae. The discussion is mainly centred on whether Paul is referring to her
leadership in the church or a general sense of service. It is probable that her title
denotes a significant role since she is singled out as the io|ovo of the church of
Cenchreae; as Thomas suggests that the term deacon was used to designate a
believer who had been set apart for work in the church with the added authority
which came with an act of setting apart.
28
The term is referring to a special office
but the nature of this special office is not clearly depicted in the New Testament
writings.
29

The title is translated as servant (NIV), deaconess (RSV, NAB, NJB, JB,
Philips), who serves (GNB), who holds office in the congregation (NEB), active
in the service of the congregation (William Barclay), a deacon in the church of
Cenchreae (NRSV). Some of the translations may be based on the general sense of
the term denoting one who serves at the table. Whelan suggests that to translate
io|ovo in Romans 16:1 as the synonym for the later office of deaconess (3
rd
or 4
th

century CE) would limit the function and responsibility when compared to the male

26
See G. H.R. Horsley, New Docs, 4:239-241.
27
See Horsley, New Docs, 4:239-240. Examples are IG III, 2.x.3527, SEG 425, Guarducci EG IV
345-47, Guarducci EG IV 368-70.
28
W. D. Thomas, Phoebe: A Helper of Many, ExpTim 95 (1984), 336-337, at 337.
29
C. S. Keener, Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Womens Ministry in the Letters of Paul
(Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1992), 238. Although the office of the deacon is interpreted in the light
of Acts 6, who is called to serve, the particular title is not used in Acts 6. That is, there is no reason to
suggest that Acts 6 is the origin of the office.
117

deaconate.
30
Since there is no separate Greek word for deaconess in the first three
centuries CE, the English translation of io|ovo as deaconess is incorrect and
misleading. It may be during the fourth century that the Greek word io|oviooo is
developed and the role and responsibility is vastly different from that of the first
century io|ovo.
31
Lio|ovo can serve to designate both a man and a woman.
Some commentators interpreted io|ovo in terms of informal service or
limited ministry to women or to the sick, in the role of a helper. For example,
Cranfield suggests that Phoebes activities are to the practical service of the
needy; Ksemann considers her ministry was the charitable care of the poor, sick,
widows and orphans.
32

On the other hand, some consider Phoebe as the leader of the particular
congregation. Dunn indicates that io|ovo together with ouoov points more to a
recognized ministry or position of responsibility within the congregation.
33

Fitzmyer regarded Phoebe as the minister and leader of the congregation.
34

Although a developed form of the deaconate is hard to distinguish at the time of
Romans, the role and function should be determined by the context of each letter as
well as each particular congregation.
35

The term io|ovo can be used in a general sense for exercising some role
of service. But in certain respects it seems to designate this role as crystallised into

30
Whelan, Amica Pauli, 67.
31
See Whelan, Amica Pauli, 68. Contra Romaniuk suggests, Paul knowingly magnifies the role of
Phoebe when he likens her role in the community to that of an officed deacon, and is a pleasant
exaggeration, which can be accepted only if there is any evidence of Paul speaking that is not totally
true and for his own personal benefits. K. Romaniuk, Was Phoebe in Romans 16, 1 a Deaconess?
ZNW 81(1990), 132-34, at 133, 134. See also D. C. Arichea, Who was Phoebe?, 407. I disagree
with the term pleasant exaggeration and his view that Phoebe was an ordinary lay-woman; if Paul
exaggerates womens roles, it should be true for Pauls statements for others elsewhere.
32
Cranfield, Romans, 2:781; Ksemann, Romans, 410; Clarke, Jew and Greek, 117.
33
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 886, 887.
34
Fitzmyer, Romans, 729-730. See also B. Holmberg, Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in
the Primitive Church as Reflected in the Pauline Epistles (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1980), 99-102;
Ellis, Paul and His Co-workers, 185.
35
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 886, 887.
118

a designated office; e.g. when related to the saints or the church. This is clear
when it is placed with other titles (Phil 1:1 and Pastorals) and is probably the case
in Romans 16:1 with Phoebe.
Function of Phoebe as io|ovo: It is noteworthy that Romans 16 is the
only occasion in which Paul describes Phoebe. Pauls description of Phoebe
includes her title not only as the io|ovo, but also her roles as otiqv qov and
poooi. Although it seems difficult to locate the specific role of Phoebe in the
church of Cenchreae, it is possible to make some deductions from the form of
recommendation and the titles used by Paul. The way he recommends Phoebe to the
Romans and the requests to the Romans to receive her and assist her in whatever
she needs of you indeed give some evidence of her role in the church of Cenchreae.
Ellis equated io|ovo with that of a special class of co-workers, those who are
active in preaching and teaching.
36
As noted above, when Paul uses io|ovto or
io|ovo in relation to a congregation, it implies an idea of some role in leading the
congregation.
The early Christian missionary movement was spread by travelling
missionaries, but Phoebe could not be understood as an itinerant missionary
37

because her responsibilities as io|ovo are centred on the local church of
Cenchreae, as the leader of the local community. As H. J. Klauck rightly asserts,
her ministry or office could not be regarded as equal to the later deaconesses,
whose ministry is limited to women; rather she was the io|ovo of the whole
church in Cenchreae.
38

36
37
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 171; Jewett suggests Phoebes role as a local leader rather than as a
travelling missionary; Jewett, Romans, 945.
38
H. J. Klauck, Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im frhen Christentum (Stuttgart: Katholisches
Bibelwerk, 1981), 31; Fiorenza, Missionaries, Apostles, Co-workers, 425.
119

It is also striking that Fiorenza tries to equate Phoebes title to that of the
charismatic preachers in Corinth as co-workers; the major difference is that Phoebe
is not the opponent of Paul but has friendly relations with Paul.
39
I presume that the
hermeneutic tool to interpret Phoebes role as io|ovo of the church of Cenchreae
should be Pauls use of io|ovo in relation to the community or the church. The
responsibilities of a io|ovo involve some leadership role, which probably
includes teaching as well as preaching.
40

I suggest that Phoebes mission in relation to the community at Cenchreae
may be the same as that of the house of Stephanas who committed themselves to
the io|ovio of saints (1 Cor 16:15) and Timothy, co-worker of Paul
41
(1 Thess
3:2).
42
In 1 Cor 3:5, 9 Paul uses the expression to designate himself and Apollos,
that they were called by God and entrusted with a common ministry.
43
As Paul
describes the members of the community as co-workers, deacons and patrons, such
terms carry no gender distinctions. It can well be translated as minister, which is a
significant title to denote a specific role in the church, a person with special
functions, who is engaged in the leading activity of the church.
44
This title in
Romans 16 clearly points to a leadership role over the whole church, not just a part

39
Fiorenza, Missionaries, Apostles, and Co-workers, 426. See also Georgi, Opponents of Paul in
Corinth, 29-32. The word group io|ovo, io|ovio, io|ovto is used in 2 Corinthians 11:13 to
characterize the false apostles, who were the charismatic preachers, visionary prophets, and spirit -
filled apostles.
40
See Croft, Text Messages, 89. See also A. Hentschel, Diakonia im Neuen Testament, 167-172.
41
1 Thes 3:2 poses a textual question whether ouvtpyov or io|ovov should be read. Metzger
suggests the best reading is ouvtpyo v ou tou tv o tuoyytiio ou Xpioou . See Metzger, A
Textual Commentary, 563.
42
See Cotter, Womens Authority Roles in Pauls Churches, 354. Tychicus is also called as our
beloved brother and faithful io|ovo (Col 4:7; cf. 2 Cor 3:6).
43
1 Cor 3:5 shows that the Pauline concept of leadership is task oriented rather than person oriented.
See A. D. Clarke, Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical & Exegetical
Study of 1 Cor 1-6 (New York: Brill, 1993), 119.
44
Arichea, Who was Phoebe? 409.
120

of it; and the way the title is introduced suggests a recognized office, though
doubtless not as well defined as it later became in the church (1 Tim 3:8-13).
45

Phoebes title io|ovo shows her leadership role exercised in the church of
Cenchreae, although it cannot be placed in the set hierarchy of the developed
constitution of the church. Pauls use of the term in Rom 16:1 is the same as his use
for his fellow workers as well as himself. The correct rendering would be a minister
of the church of Cenchreae. Although there is no question of the fully fledged office
of diaconate at the early stage, Phoebe could be identified as io|ovo, a women of
recognized status and significance. Having looked at the io|ovo role of Phoebe, I
will focus on the next significant title poooi.
4.2.2. Hpoooi
Of all the women associates of Paul, Phoebe has a unique place, since she is
the only woman entitled io|ovo of a specific church. Alongside this, Paul uses a
special title poooi (Rom 16:2) to describe her function and role in relation to
his ministry, which is also a unique word in the entire New Testament. Even though
the details of her activities are not clearly depicted in the epistle, it is possible to
deduce her role and function in the community of Cenchreae from the titles used.
Epigraphic evidence suggests that there were female patrons, who took an active
part in voluntary associations and guilds, and patronage was a well established
institution in the first century.
46

This section attempts to make a study of the term poooi in order to find
out the meaning with regard to Phoebe in Rom 16:2. After analysing different
translations and interpretations, I will suggest what role Phoebe had probably
played as the poooi of many and of Paul himself.

45
Bassler, Phoebe, 135.
46
See for more discussion chapter 3.
121

4.2.2.1. Translations and Interpretations
Hpoooi is the feminine form of poooq and is used for a sponsor of
a private association. Hpoooq could mean one who stands before as the leader,
president or ruler, or one who stands to protect as a guardian, champion or patron.
47

The title occurs in six Jewish inscriptions in which it is difficult to differentiate
between the meanings whether leader or patron is the suitable translation.
48
Trebilco
comments that the inscriptions testify that there was often more than one
poooq in the community and that it was a significant position in some
synagogues.
49
In the LXX, the term has the meaning of leader or ruler and not
patron. Josephus and Philo used both meanings such as leader or patron and
champion as well. Philo usually employs poooq and pooooio in the
sense of the title or office of the president of the community.
50
It is also important
to note that the term is commonly used in the ancient world to denote the patron of
a pagan religious society, who looked after the groups interests.
51
The role of
qqp ouvoyoyq is assumed to have parallel roles with that of poooq.
52

Hpoooi has been translated in different forms as she has been a great
assistance to many (BGD); a helper of many (RSV); a good friend to many
(NEB); a great help to many people (NIV); has come to the help of many (NJB);
a benefactor of many (NRSV). Whelan suggests that the problem concerning the

47
LSJ, poooq, 1526-27.
48
Horsley, NewDocs, 4:242. The inscriptions are CPJ 3, 1441 (Xenephyris); CPJ 2, 149 (Alexandria,
the prostates of a loan society); CPJ 1, 101f. (Oxyrhynchos); CIJ 100 and 365 (Rome); SEG 29.969
(Naples).
49
Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, 109.
50
Trebilco, Jewish Communities in Asia Minor, 109. See also J. M. Reynolds and R. Tannenbaum,
Jews and God Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek Inscriptions with Commentary. PCPSSV vol.12
(Cambridge Philological Society, 1987), 41. In the LXX it translates the word ruler (1 Chr 27:31;
29:6; 2 Chr 8:10), overseer (2 Chr 24: 11) and commissioner (2 Chr 24:11). See also 1 Esdras 2:12
(cf. 6:18); Sir 45:24; 2 Macc 3:4. In Josephus poooq means patron nine times (e.g. Ant 14: 157,
444), leader nine times (e.g. BJ 1:633), and champion once (BJ 2:135); Philo uses the term three times
with meanings leader, patron and champion (Virt. 155; Abr. 221).
51
52
Brooten, Women Leaders, 65. See 3.6.4
122

translation of the term is in connection with the hidden assumptions of Bible
translators regarding the position of women in primitive Christianity and more
importantly a lack of understanding of the position of women in the imperial
period.
53
Let me analyse the different renderings.
i. Helper
A number of English versions translate poooi as helper. They are such
as succourer (KJV), helper (RSV, NAS, and NKJV), a great help (NIV), and
has come to the help of (NJB). Some commentators also interpret with the same
meaning. For example, Ksemann suggests that poooi cannot in the
context have the juridical sense of the masculine form, i.e. the leader or
representative of a fellowship. There is no reference, then to a patroness who
could not take on legal functions. The idea is that of personal care which Paul and
others have received at the hand of the deaconess.
54

The possibility of interpreting in this line may be: 1) the cognate verb
poioqi has the meaning to have an interest in, show concern for, care for, and
give aid;
55
2) the term poooi and the request of Paul to assist (opooqt)
Phoebe in whatever she needs has resulted in some of the manuscripts (F, G)
replacing poooi by opoooi. On the basis of the request of Paul to
receive her worthily of the saints and to stand by her in whatever she requires of
you, the term is rendered as she has been the assistant (opoooi) of many and
Paul as well and corresponding to the activity of io|ovo translated as helper.
However, as we have discussed in the previous section, the rendering as helper is

53
See Whelan, Amica Pauli, 69.
54
Ksemann, Romans, 411; see also Barrett, Romans, 282-283. Although Cranfield assumes a general
sense of a helper role for Phoebe, he agrees that Phoebe is possessed of some social position,
wealth and independence; Cranfield, Romans, 2:782.
55
BDAG, 870.
123

unlikely in the context of Rom 16:2.
56
The lexical evidence indicates it should be
translated as protectress or patroness, and it is misleading to translate
poooi as helper, since those who were in the position of poooi enjoyed
a high position, and were far more than assistants to others.
ii. Leader or president of the congregation
Another suggestion is that it could be translated as leader or president of the
congregation. The arguments
57
are based on:
a) The related term poioqi in 1 Thess 5:12: 1 Tim 3:4-5, and 5:17, which
speaks about someone with authority and who presides over or governs a
community of believers.
b) The masculine form of the noun poooq is used for stewards of the
kings property or for the chief officers over the people (1 Chr 27:31; 2 Chr
8:10; 24:11; Esd 2:12; Sir 45:24; 2 Macc 3:4).
c) Justin Martyr used the word poooq for a person presiding over the
communion (First Apology 65).
d) The passive form tytvqq in the clause describes an appointment to an
office; the clause |oi yop ouq poooi oiiov tytvqq |oi tou
ouou should be rendered for she has been appointed, actually by my own
action, an officer presiding over many.
These arguments have their own shortcomings, since poooi is used here
not in relation to the church but to individuals. Also it is worth considering how she
could be the president of Paul and many others as well. It is also dubious to take the

56
Fiorenza, Missionaries, 425.
57
This argument is put forward by R. R. Schulz, A Case for President Phoebe in Romans 16:2,
LTJ 24 (1990), 124-27; see also E. Y. Ng, Phoebe as Prostatis, TJ 25 (2004), 3-13, at 4.
124

phrase |oi tou ouou as indicating the agent of the action. The idea of presidency
is unlikely in this case.
58

iii. Patroness, Protectress, Benefactress
The appropriate translation could be patroness, protectress or benefactor. The
rendering benefactor is adopted by NRSV and TNIV and recent commentators
also interpret along this line.
59

This line of interpretation is built upon assumptions such as that poooi
is equivalent to the more common poooq, the masculine counterpart, and that
the Greek words are equivalent to the Latin words patronus and patrona. The Latin
equivalent, patronus is used to refer to patronage of collegia or clubs.
60
It is possible
to argue that Phoebe is similar to the patrons/patronesses of individuals, of voluntary
associations, clubs, and professional guilds. Hence she may be offering monetary
support, procuring political advantages, serving as legal representative for
individuals, opening her house to receive visitors or provide meeting grounds, etc.
Reynolds and Tannenbaum suggest that the position of the patronage, if it refers to
the community, would be similar to that of pater or mater of synagogues and would
be similar to that of the Hellenistic cult societies.
61
Judge evaluates that the better
attested meaning protectress suffered from appearing to assign Phoebe a much
higher social status than might have been anticipated,
62
an issue which will be
discussed in the following section.

58
Murray, Romans, 2:227; Schreiner, Romans, 788.
59
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 887; Jewett, Romans, 946, 947. See also B. Reike, poioqi TDNT 6,
700-703, at 703; MM, 551.
60
Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 116; R. MacMullen, Roman Social Relations: 50 BC to AD 284
(London: Yale University Press, 1974), 74-76.
61
Reynolds and Tannenbaum, Jews and God Fearers, 41.
62
E. A. Judge, Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from Contemporary
Documents, TynBul 35 (1984), 3-24, at 21.
125

4.2.2.2. The Social status of Phoebe
There are differing views about the social status of Phoebe. On the one hand,
many scholars suggest that she is a woman of high social standing, since
poooi denotes an upper class benefactor
63
and base their argument on the
fact that she is a wealthy patron, and that the references to the offices, households,
and help rendered to the congregation and the fact that she has funds to travel give
us evidence of the social status of a person and that the role of wealthier women in
the early church is well attested in providing hospitality and the place of meeting
and leading roles in the congregations.
64

On the other hand, some scholars suggest that wealth is not a guiding factor
to decide independence and influence. For example, Meggitt suggests that it is not
plausible to infer that the individuals mentioned by Paul in his letters are mentioned
due to the fact that they were elite or prosperous in society.
65
He argues in relation
to Phoebe as follows; a) independence could not be regarded as a deciding factor to
determine whether she is elite or non-elite;
66
b) the term poooi cannot be
regarded in a manner pointing to her wealth; c) Phoebes ability to travel cannot be

63
Theissen, Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 252-57. The other scholars who share a similar
view about the leading role of male and female upper class benefactors in early Christian
communities are Holmberg, Funk, Murphy-OConnor, Meeks, Kearsley, Trebilco, Garrison. Jewett
portrays Phoebe as the patron for the Spanish mission; see Jewett, Romans, 947; Meeks, First Urban
Christians, 57; Kearsley, Women in the Public East, 189-211; Trebilco, Jewish Communities, 109.
64
S. R. Llewelyn, Changing the Legal Jurisdiction, NewDocs 9, 45-53, at 50.
65
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival, 134. Meggitt proposes that the reference to the household
with slaves, hospitality and material help rendered to the members of the community and travel are
not secure evidence of a high social-economic status in the Pauline community. See Meggitt, Paul,
Poverty and Survival, 128-135.
66
Meggitt agrees that Phoebe is definitely an independent woman since she is not mentioned with any
male name and also she is capable of conducting business tours, but non-elite as well as the elite
woman enjoyed independence. See Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 145; cf. A. Cameron,
Neither Male nor Female, GR 27 (1980), 60-68, at 62, 63. Cameron in her article remarks that the
women of lower and middle-classes lived relatively active lives in the late republican and early
imperial Rome and Phoebe, although not belonging to the upper-class, is certainly of substantial
means.
126

an indicator of her elite status.
67
Rather he agrees that Phoebe had some
significant contribution in Pauline communities but not on the basis of her wealth
as a source of travel. Although Phoebe did not play the traditional role of a patron,
he agrees that Pauls words indicate her significant position in the church at
Cenchreae.
68

Moreover, Meggitt doubts whether Paul is using poooi for Phoebe in a
sense of social superiority.
69
His argument is based on three issues: firstly, she is
not equal to the patrons of Greco-Roman world; secondly, he infers that _pq q
poyoi is a request for material help for Phoebe, which is unusual in a patron-
client relationship, where patrons required political or social support in return;
thirdly, sending a recommendation on behalf of a patron is quite unusual in Pauls
day since the recommendee was socially inferior to the patron and not superior.
Having described the above two viewpoints, my suggestions are; firstly,
Phoebe is not necessarily elite nor of high status, but rather, relatively wealthy when
compared to the members of the church of Cenchreae; secondly, patron in the full
technical sense of the Greco-Roman world is unwarranted; however, she has some
informal benefactress role. Thirdly, I disagree with Meggitt that Paul requested
material help for Phoebe, since the expression does not point to any specific help,
but is an open-ended request.
What made Paul recommend Phoebe to the church at Rome? What is the
significance of their relationship? The ancient letters of recommendation testify to
recommendees in two different ways: one as inferior to the letter writer, as a client

67
Meggitt suggests that there were lower class patrons and travel could be by various means and not
much to do with wealth and status. Lydia and Phoebe are misrepresented as wealthy, entrepreneurial,
independent women, since most women were denied access to the economic resources and their jobs
were basic, not skilled jobs. See Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 69, 78, 144.
68
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 149.
69
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 146-148.
127

to the writer, and the other as more or less social equals.
70
In the light of Romans 16,
an inferior role of Phoebe can hardly be found. Rather on the basis of her social role
as poooi and ecclesiastical role as io|ovo, it is far more plausible to find
mutuality in the relationship between Paul and Phoebe. Whelan suggests that
Phoebe being described as the patron of many and of myself implies that Paul
accepts her as his social superior to some extent.
71
That Phoebe was merely a
financial benefactor is less clear but both share their honour and prestige acting in
reciprocity: Phoebe as the patron of Paul and Paul as recommending or sponsoring
her. Whelan rightly suggests that patronage here implies mutual obligation or
reciprocity.
72

Therefore, I suggest that there is a concept of mutual obligation in the
relationship between Paul and Phoebe rather than social superiority. It is not one-way
patronage, but the model of patronage is taken up into a relationship of mutuality and
reciprocity. Thus Phoebe seems to be an influential figure with relative wealth (to
entertain guests at her home) and some social position, being a benefactor of many as
well as of Paul.
4.2.2.3. Function of Phoebe as Hpoooi
On the basis of the preceding discussion, it appears that Phoebe played the role
of a benefactor or patron, and our next task is to discover in what sense she is the
poooi to Paul as well as many.

70
Whelan, Amica Pauli, 80, 81. The first type shows an unequal relationship and the writer may be
superior to the recommendee, while in the second type, the writer assumes the role of a mediator
introducing the person to a new group of friends. The recommendee being the superior of the writer
is rarely found.
71
Whelan, Amica Pauli, 83. That Phoebe is the social superior of Paul to some extent is accepted
by Jewett as well as Judge. See Jewett, Spanish Mission, 149-50; Judge, Cultural Conformity and
Innovation in Paul, 21. Bierinder suggests Phoebe is superior of Paul which is not likely; R.
Bieringer, Women and Leadership in Romans 16: The Leading Roles of Phoebe, Prisca, and Junia in
Early Christianity: Part I, East Asian Pastoral Review 44 (2007), 221-237, at 235.
72
Whelan, Amica Pauli, 84. There is a sense of mutual indebtedness between Paul and Phoebe.
Whelan suggests Phoebe is sent to the Ephesian church, while I consider that Phoebe is sent to the
church in Rome and that Romans 16 is an integral part of the letter to the Romans. See above 1.3.
128

The different possible roles may be such as
73

1. Patron of the congregation of Cenchreae
2. Legal representative of individuals
3. Patron-client relationship
4. Benefaction in terms of hospitality and practical help
There is no way to think that Phoebe worked as merely an assistant or helper
since she is acknowledged by the same title as the patrons in associations and guilds.
Phoebe is neither described as a poooi of the church of Cenchreae nor
explicitly in a juridical or technical sense. Moreover, it is also doubtful whether a
patron-client relationship in the Greco-Roman world was involved in the
relationship between Phoebe and Paul. However, what is more explicitly suggested
is the notion of reciprocity involved in the request on behalf of Phoebe. The
benefaction system involves reciprocal relations within networks, and the
characteristic of these relations involves exchange of benefits or gifts of numerous
kinds in return for appropriate honours. Relations were reciprocal in the sense that
both the benefactor and the beneficiary had something to gain from the exchange,
whether tangible or otherwise.
74

Most scholars who agree on the benefactor role of Phoebe assume her role of
hospitality.
75
Her benefaction could be compared to that of Junia Theodora, who
welcomed Lycian travellers and citizens in her own house and looked after their
interests.
76
Unlike Junia in a civic or federal capacity with a particular ethnic group,
Phoebe acted as a patron to many individuals, presumably saints, for she has been a
patron of many and myself also (poooi oiiov tytvqq |oi tou ouou;

73
Ng, Phoebe as Prostatis, 6-9.
74
Harland, Associations, Synagogues and Congregations, 97.
75
Schreiner, Romans, 788; Ng, Phoebe as Prostatis, 12.
76
See above, 3.4. See also Cohick, Women in the World of the Earliest Christians, 301-307.
129

Rom 16:2). She may have been a host to many and her sphere of influence was the
church in Cenchreae in whose service she operated, possibly as her home.
77

The recipients of her patronage were many (oiiov). They could have
been those who were financially supported or used her contacts and influence on
their behalf, possibly those residing in Cenchreae. If Phoebes patronage is limited
to the church of Cenchreae, Paul would have mentioned it more clearly as the
poooi of the church. Many implies that those who benefited from her
patronage were uncountable. Paul himself was also the recipient of patronage which
was expressed by a double pronoun |oi tou ouou, emphasizing, perhaps, her
patronage to his missionary work. As described above, the mutual obligation
between Phoebe and Paul is significant.
The specific situation in which Phoebe extended patronage to many as well as
Paul is unknown, but it can be assumed that hospitality is the main issue in
consideration. Although Phoebe might be noted for hospitality like other women-
associates in Pauline communities, I doubt whether Paul used the term poooi
to refer only to her hospitable character. It could be assumed that Phoebe as the
benefactor played a substantial role in the community and her contribution is
significant as well as noteworthy and is to be reciprocated. Phoebe could have
supplied aid to others, especially foreigners, providing housing and financial aid
and representing their interests before local authorities.
78
Thus we find a mixture of
all the possible roles assigned for a patroness, including formal, legal and social
expectations. As Fiorenza rightly affirms:

77
Winter, Roman Wives, 195. Byrne suggests that through her ministry of hospitality, she earned
recognition among her own community and among many believers passing through. See B. Byrne,
Romans (Sacra Pagina Series 6; Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996), 448.
78
Moo, Romans, 916. Benefaction included not only financial help, but also allowing clients to get
access to social and economic resources as well. See Whelan, Amica Pauli, 84. Contra Ng, Phoebe
as Prostatis, 9 (who suggests that Paul did not depend on Phoebe only for monetary benefits).
130

The well-to-do converts to Christianity must have expected to exercise
the influence of a patron in the early Christian community. Christians
such as Phoebe acted as benefactors for individual Christians and the
whole church. In dealings with the government or the courts they
represented the whole community. With their network of connections,
friendships with well placed persons, and public influence, such
benefactions eased the social life of other Christians in Greco-Roman
society.
79

The preceding study shows that Phoebes title poooi is unique, since she
is the only woman in the New Testament bearing this title, and significant with
respect to her role as the benefactor. The correct rendering of the term poooi
is benefactor, rather than helper or president. The notion of reciprocity is explicit
in the request on behalf of her. Phoebe is probably an influential woman and a
relatively wealthy person. Since she is presented as poooi of many and of
myself (Paul) as well (v.2) and not specifically as poooi of the church, the
emphasis falls on her role as patron or benefactor, though the title reinforces her role
as io|ovo. What was the intention of Paul in recommending Phoebe to the
Romans? Were there any hidden motives like patronage for the Spanish mission?
This will be the focus of discussion in the following section.
4.2.3. Expected Role: Patronage in the Spanish Mission?
4.2.3.1. Jewetts Thesis
Robert Jewett proposes that Phoebes mission is solely the preparation for the
Spanish mission as the main practical outcome of Romans.
80
He outlines the
purpose of the letter to the Romans as follows: Paul wishes to gain support for a
mission to the barbarians in Spain, which requires that the gospel of impartial,
divine righteousness revealed in Christ be clarified to rid it of prejudicial elements

79
Fiorenza, Missionaries, Apostles, 426.
80
Jewett, Romans, 74-91, 941-948. See also Jewett, Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission, 142-
161.
131

that are currently dividing the congregations in Rome.
81
Jewett considers that the
request in 16:2b (opooqt ouq tv o ov uov _pqq poyoi) is important
in determining the role of Phoebe. The matter is her missionary patronage, which
she has provided for many others and now is providing for Paul, and this help is
what Paul requests from the Roman congregations.
82
Phoebes presentation as the
poooi (16:2c) describes her leadership role in the letter to the Romans and
indicates her high social status. He suggests, as bearer of the letter, that Phoebe has
some significant tasks such as to present the letter to the various congregations in
Rome and discuss its contents and implications with church leaders,
83
and to bring
about unity among the house churches in order to get the full support for the Spanish
mission; to find suitable resources for the mission in Spain.
84
He suggests that the
greetings are the first stage of the recruitment process, and can be understood in
relation to Phoebes task to prepare the ground for Pauls visit to Rome.
85

4.2.3.2. Evaluation of Jewetts View
Although Phoebes role in Rome cannot be explicitly made out from the
recommendation, Jewett correlates the role of Phoebe to her patronage for the
Spanish mission on account of the background of Spain and Pauls desire to visit
Spain as well. The inference could be given some weight if the purpose of Romans
is only the Spanish mission. Although it is true that Paul is longing to expand his

81
Jewett, Romans, 1. Jewett argues that Romans is an ambassadorial letter; the theological
argumentation and the ethical admonitions in the epistle to the Romans have as their purpose that
of seeking the support of the believers in Rome, and also the success of the co-operative mission to
evangelize Spain. Jewett links Pauls use of the term barbarians in Romans 1:14 to the picture of
Spain, due to the evidence of uncivilized areas. Jewett, Romans, 44, 77. See also Kmmel,
Introduction to the New Testament, 305-307. Kmmel argues that Romans has a purpose of creating a
base of operations in Rome and to spread mission further to Spain, to preach Christ where he has not
already been named (Rom 15:20); P. Stuhlmacher, The Theme of Romans, in K. P. Donfried, (ed.),
The Romans Debate (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991), 333-345; Jewett, Romans, 87. See for more
discussion Jewett, Romans, 89-91.
82
Jewett, Romans, 90.
83
Jewett, Romans, 90. See also Jewett, Spanish Mission, 151.
84
Jewett, Romans, 90
85
132

missionary enterprise to Spain (Spain is mentioned twice in his missionary plans in
Romans; 15:24, 28), I doubt whether the unfavourable conditions in Spain as
explained by Jewett were a barrier to his plan of mission. Moreover, it is unlikely
that barbarians (Rom 1:14) were the uncultured people of Spain.
86
That the cultural,
linguistic and political situation of Spain caused a barrier to begin the mission in
Spain is unpersuasive when compared to the missionary strategy of Paul and the
notion that he could not embark on his plan for the Spanish mission without the
support and resources of the believers in Rome also lacks evidence in the epistle to
the Romans. As Barclay rightly suggests, As a travelling artisan, he had learned to
make his way in many different cities, and, as an apostle to the Gentiles it is hard
to imagine that he had always depended on local synagogue contacts (however Acts
may portray matters).
87

4.2.3.3. Hpoyo
Jewett argues that poyo in Rom 16:2 is a significant term to determine the
role of Phoebe in the letter to the Romans, which merits discussion and evaluation.
I do not agree that poyo denotes Phoebes missionary patronage.
My points of dissent are based on:
i. Translation: the matter (o) poyo
ii. Analysis: relating the ivo and yop clauses to find the meaning of poyo
iii. Interprtation: poyo as Phoebes patronage
i. Translation: Jewetts translation of the expression tv o ov uov _pqq
poyoi (she might need in the matter) is incorrect, because poyo in the
expression cannot be translated as the matter. tv o ov uov _pqq poyoi

86
Jewett links Pauls use of the term barbarian in Romans 1:14 to the picture of Spain. Jewett,
Romans, 77. The population live in villages and are wild and uncivilized.
87
J. M. G. Barclay, Is it Good News that God is Impartial?: A Response to Robert Jewett, Romans:
A Commentary JSNT 31 (2008), 89-111, at 94, 95. (Italics as given in the article)
133

is an indefinite clause used with the subjunctive and there is no definite article used
in order to specify a particular thing.
The different translations of verse 2b do not give the meaning of poyo in
a precise manner, rather with an indefinite meaning. Examples include: and help
her with anything she needs (JB); and stand by her in any business in which she
may need your help (NEB); and help her in whatever she may require from you
(NRSV); and help her in whatever she may require from you (RSV); and support
her in any business in which she may need your help (REB); and assist her in
whatever business she has need of you (NKJV). Therefore, I prefer the translation
of v.2b: and help her in whatever matter she may need from you.
ii. Analysis
Jewetts analysis of v.2 by relating the two ivo and yop clauses to find the
purpose of recommendation seems to be unwarranted. That is, his way of relating
poyo to poooi is inaccurate on the basis of the analysis of the passage.
The ivo (v.2a, 2b) clause introduces the two-fold purpose of Pauls letter of
recommendation for Phoebe, whereas |oi yop in v.2c signifies Phoebe as a person
worthy of help, i.e. not as an elucidation of the poyo itself.
The letter of recommendation for Phoebe has a similar style to that of the
recommendation letters among the papyri and literary collections.
88

The three similar features are:
a) the person introduced with name;
b) a brief statement of the qualifications or credentials of the person by
referring to the relationship to the person recommending and other background
information;

88
Kim, Greek Letter of Recommendation, 7. See also Gamble, Textual History, 84.
134

c) request on behalf of the person recommended.
89

The brief pericope (16:1, 2) has features similar to Pauls recommendations in
other letters (Phil 4:2, 3; 1 Cor 16:15-18; 1 Thess 5:12-13a; Phlm 10-17). These
commendations include features like introduction, qualifications of the person
recommended and the desired role from the recipient. It is also significant to note
that the Greek benefaction inscriptions have three vital components: the
benefactors efforts for official recognition; the award of honours by the Council
and the people; and the reason for the endearment and approval of the persons
status or position,
90
which are the same three features as in Phoebes
recommendation in Rom 16:1, 2.
Therefore, Jewetts technique of relating the two clauses to find the role of
Phoebe is doubtful because the two clauses have different purposes in view. Rom
16:2 (a, b) is a ivo clause introducing the purpose of recommendation that you may
receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and help her in whatever
matter she may need from you, whereas v.2c begins with |oi yop: for she has
been a patron of many as well as of myself, re-emphasising her credentials.
iii. Interpretation
I disagree with Jewetts interpretation of poyo as referring to a specific
matter (the matter) in the letter of recommendation for Phoebe. His argument is
based on his presupposition that the letter to the Romans has one main purpose of
the Spanish Mission and so the role of Phoebe is so specific that the matter that
Phoebe will bring to Rome has an integral relation to the purpose of the letter, and

89
The request clause consists of ivo or oo - purpose clause and a yop causal clause. See Kim,
Greek Letter of Recommendation, 64.
90
135

Paul requests that the congregation provide whatever she needs to accomplish it.
91

Though Jewetts aim is to prove that the Spanish mission is the purpose of the letter
to the Romans, I consider that the letter has several different purposes in view.
92

I will argue that Jewetts interpretation of poyo to find the role of Phoebe
as well as the purpose of the whole letter is totally unjustifiable. I would like to
build up my arguments by comparing Phoebes letter with the ancient letters of
recommendation and the exegetical analysis of the verse.
Jewetts basic thesis that the purpose of Phoebes visit is mentioned in the
letter of recommendation can be brought under scrutiny because the role of the
recommendee is not usually mentioned in the letter of recommendation. The letters
were carried with the individuals on their travel but the purpose of the journey is not
stated.
93
Although in some cases the recipient of the letter is asked to do a definite
favour for the person introduced, in about half of the letters where any favour is
mentioned, it is of a quite general character.
94

The favour requested in the letters is usually general, without mentioning
exactly the purpose of the visit, which is similar in Rom 16:2: ouqv pootqot
tv |upio oio o oyiov |oi opooqt ouq tv o ov uov _pqq
poyoi. This request formula has a resemblance in terminology with that of the
letters of recommendation.
95
The reasons why the recipient should do the favours
requested is also not given in the letters, apart from the close relations to the writer

91
Jewett, Romans, 946. He suggests that Phoebe needs no help in business, lawsuit and housing;
however, the help she needed from the recipients of the letter is specific, i.e. help for the Spanish
Mission.
92
J. D. G Dunn, Romans, in DPL (Illinois: IVP, 1993), 838-846, at 839, 840; Ksemann also
considers the Spanish mission as one of the purposes of the letter, Ksemann, Romans, 398. See also
Wedderburn, Reasons for Romans, 97-102.
93
S. R. Llewelyn, The Christian Letters of Recommendation, NewDocs, 8:170.
94
Keyes, Greek Letter of Introduction, 40. To assist in whatever matter is a general way of asking
a favour (P. Cairo. Zen. 59101, 59192, 59284, PSI. 8, 969. P. Oxy 787, P. Giss 71, P. Giss 88). See
also; Kim, Recommendation, 72.
95
Keyes, Greek Letter of Introduction, 41. The different forms of the verbs t_tooi and _pqtiv
are used in the common letters too.
136

or the virtues of the bearer of the letter (e.g. P. Oxy 1064, P. Flor 2, P. Giss 71).
96

Although most of the letters share common characteristics, there are peculiar forms
for each letter.
4.2.3.4. Exegetical Analysis
The request of favour on Phoebes behalf (16:2: opooqt ouq tv o
o v uov _pqq poyoi) could be interpreted in different ways in relation to
some personal matter in business or lawsuit, which may be the aim of Phoebes
visit to Rome, on the basis of the use of poyo. It could also have a sense of an
open ended request for aid in view of the expression o ov uov _pq q.
97

The word poyo is used eleven times in the New Testament, of which four
are in Pauline letters.
98
Pauls references to poyo are: Rom 16:2 whatever
matter (tv o ov _pq q poyoi); 1 Cor 6:1; lawsuit (i uov poyo
t_ov); 2 Cor 7:11 this very thing (o poyoi); 1 Thess 4:6 this matter (o
poyoi). There is no definite article used in Rom 16:2 to specify a special
matter; rather an indefinite clause is used with the subjunctive (tv o ov uov
_pq q poyoi) in whatever matter she may need from you.
99
Hpoyo as
used in 1 Corinthians refers to a lawsuit or dispute with a fellow brother as is clear
from the context, whereas the other two (1 Thess 4:6; 2 Cor 7:11) are used with a
definite article, with specific reference. Hpoyo used without referring to a
specific matter occurs only once in the Pauline letters, i.e. in Romans 16:2.

96
In some of the literary letters, the reasons are given as because he has done favors to me Chion. 2;
because you wish to know good men Plato 14; you will help both cities, Socrates 3; and because
he praised you Socratici 30.
97
Kim, Greek Letter of Recommendation, 133.
98
W. F. Moulton and A. S. Geden, A Concordance to the New Testament, I. H. Marshall (ed.)
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 2002), 926. The other NT uses are Mt 18:19 anything (tpi ovo
poyoo ); Lk 1:1 those things (tv qi v poyoov); Acts 5:4 this thing (o poyo ouo);
Heb 6:18 two things (uo poyoov); Heb 10:1 the good things (ov poyoov); Heb 11:1
things (poyoov); James 3:16 every evil thing (ov ouiov poyo).
99
See also Barclay, Is it Good News that God is Impartial?, 95, 96.
137

Hpoyo is generally used in the sense of matter, thing or affair.
100
It has different
shades of meanings; that which is done, deed, thing, event, occurrence; that which is
to be done, undertaking, occupation, task; in general, thing, matter, affair. Examples
in the papyri include P. Oxy VI (ordinary meaning - an action or deed); P. Ryl II, P.
Oxy IX (vaguer meaning - a matter or affair); P. Ryl II, P. Strass I (lawsuit cf. 1 Cor
6:1); P. Oxy IV (weaker sense of trouble); Chrest. I. (business, trade). Although
Jewett suggests that poyo has a vague meaning, it seems that he wants to fix it
with a specific meaning, which is unjustified from a hermeneutical point of view.
101

In the context of Romans 16:2, it could be presumably a task which is to be
done. It is improbable to interpret this as a lawsuit or dispute, since the task is not to
settle a dispute.
102
That Phoebe needs any help in her business is also less plausible,
since she is a woman, who helped a number of Christian missionaries and she is a
patron of many. But the indefinite use of poyo could mean that in different
matters Phoebe could stand in need of the help of the Romans and in all such
matters they need to assist her.
103
The indeterminate expression implies an open-
ended request to provide whatever help the person requires.
104
Therefore Jewetts
reading of the verse to find the meaning of poyo denoting her patronage is
unlikely because the purpose of Phoebes visit is not specifically pointed out in v.2.
Thus it is clear that Jewetts translation, analysis and interpretation of Rom
16:2 (or poyo) in order to determine the expected role of Phoebe in Rome is
highly questionable. I infer that the expected role of Phoebe in Rome is not explicit
in the letter of recommendation, as Jewett considers. I prefer verse 2b to be

100
BDAG, 858, 859; MM, 532; G. Friedrich, (ed.) poyo TDNT 6, 638-40.
101
102
Dunn suggests that there is sufficient testimony of women acting as independent litigants. Dunn,
Romans 9-16, 888. See also Fitzmyer, Romans, 731.
103
Cranfield, Romans, 2:782; Moo, Romans, 915; Ksemann, Romans, 411.
104
Example: Athanaeus, Deipn. 10.74.10; Jewett, Romans, 945, 946.
138

translated as and help her in whatever matter she may need from you. The analysis
of the passage shows that the matter is not specific. The request of favour on behalf
of Phoebe implies that the believers in Rome have to assist her in various matters
(whatever matter). tv o ov uov _pqq poyoi is not denoting the matter,
but is a general way of asking favours from the recipients in a letter of
recommendation. The clause beginning with yop is re-emphasizing the credentials
of Phoebe that she is a woman worthy of help and that she is the poooi of
many as well as Paul. Therefore, the request on Phoebes behalf could imply certain
significant characteristics: she has an indefinite number of significant tasks; she is
worthy of undertaking those tasks and she is worthy of assistance.
4.2.4. Relation of Reciprocity
The underlying fact in the entire passage is the relation of reciprocity. The
relation of reciprocity is precipitated to a notable degree between Paul and Phoebe,
and he wants to extend this to the relationship between Phoebe and the Romans. The
way of presenting Phoebe to the Romans is significant in many respects since
reciprocity is very much implicit in the letter of recommendation. As I have
described some of the key ideas in the preceding sections, my next venture is to
make apparent the most significant aspect of the relationship, which Paul wants to
communicate to the Romans, which is not equality, inferiority, or superiority, but
mutuality. The relations of reciprocity can be seen in the structure of the passage, in
the sibling relationship, and in the request for welcome and assistance.
4.2.4.1. Structure of the Passage
Mutuality is evident from the structure of Rom 16:1-2.
a. what Phoebe has done for others:
v.1 ouoov io|ovov q t||iqoio q tv Kty_ptoi
139

b. what Romans have to do for her:
v.2a pootqot tv |upio oio o v oyiov |oi opooqt
ouq tv o ov uov _pqq poyoi
a. what Phoebe has done for others:
v.2b poooi oiiov tytvqq |oi tou ouou
Structure a + a shows the relationship between Paul and Phoebe, and also
Phoebe and many others, while (a + a) + b also calls for a pattern of mutuality
between Phoebe and the believers in Rome. What Paul and others have received
from Phoebe is worth giving her back. There may be a question regarding by what
means the Romans received her help in order to reciprocate. It could be inferred that
Pauls portrayal of Phoebe as our sister has implications for the believers in Rome
as well. It is possible to think that the believers of Rome could have received
Phoebes help as a poooi (of many). Precisely by putting this in such general
terms, Paul includes a wide possible circle of beneficiaries.
4.2.4.2. Sibling Relationship (otiqv qov)
Paul introduces Phoebe first to the Romans as our sister otiqv qov
(v.1). The use of the feminine otiq in contrast to masculine otio in
Phoebes recommendation is worth noting. This shows that the designation of
woman fellow-Christian as sister seems to have been particularly characteristic of
Christianity (1 Cor 7:15; 9:5; Phlm 2; James 2:15).
105
The reference to Phoebe as
our sister shows her membership in the Christian community. It carries the
nuance of her solidarity with Paul as well as with all other Christians in Rome and

105
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 886. There are also examples in Ign. Pol. 5.1; 2 Clem. 12.5; 19.1; 20. 2;
Herm. 2.2.3; 2.3. The Papyri letters of recommendation (PSI III 208, PSI IX 1041, P. Alex 29, P. Oxy
XXXVI 2785, SB X 10255, SB III 7269, P. Oxy VIII 1162, SB XVI 12304 and P. Oxy LV1 3857)
also use familial languages like sister, brother, daughter, catechumen etc. in introducing the person
who is travelling. The familial titles imply the Christian context of the letters with ecclesiastical
connotations. See Llewelyn, NewDocs, 6:171.
140

elsewhere.
106
Dunn indicates that qov denotes a universal meaning: the concept
of international brotherhood and sisterhood or the role of Phoebe in relation to the
churches as a whole.
107
However, Aasgaard points out that the sibling metaphor
used in Phoebes case is associated with particular status and authority; the
responsibility includes both internal and external affairs: a role in the church and
involvement in the proclamation of Christ to outsiders.
108

4.2.4.3. Reciprocity in Hospitality and Assistance
The purpose of the recommendation is stated with a ivo clause to welcome
her with full hospitality and to provide her with whatever she needs (v.2). How is
reciprocity attached to these requests? How is Paul emphasizing Phoebes action for
others, in order to prove that she is worth receiving it back?
The first purpose of recommendation is stated in the expression: ouqv
pootqot tv |upio oio ov oyiov. There are differing views among the
scholars regarding pootqot. On the one hand, it indicates a general way of
showing hospitality and on the other, welcome has some relation to her
ecclesiastical position as the leader of the church because of the use of the phrases
tv |upio and oio ov oyiov. Ksemann thinks welcome may be meant in
the sense of offering her lodging and help in a secular way.
109
Cranfield suggests
that the expression has some significance in relation to her role in the church since
the phrase in the Lord is added to it.
110
In the secular letters of recommendation

106
Jewett, Paul, Phoebe and the Spanish Mission, 148.
107
108
Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!, 297-298. The persons sibling status appears to be
related to their roles as missionary co-workers. Cf. 1 Cor 1:1; 2 Cor 1:1; Phlm 1; 1 Thess 3:2; 2 Cor
2:12f; Phil 2:25: Sosthenes, Timothy, Titus, Epaphroditus are Pauls messengers and co-workers in
missionary endeavour.
109
Ksemann, Romans, 411.
110
Cranfield, Romans, 2:781-782. Cranfield suggests the expression worthy of the saints is
superfluous. But oio was an important term used in the Roman government to demonstrate honour,
rank, office, esteem, worthiness. Jewett thinks the meaning is the same as in Phil 2:29, concerning
welcoming back Epaphroditus; Jewett, Romans, 945; Jewett, Spanish Mission, 150. It probably has
141

poottooi is used with respect to the hospitality given to the bearer of the
letter.
111
The phrase worthy of the saints throws light on the fact that she should be
welcomed as a fellow believer (cf. Rom 12:13).
Earlier Paul had exhorted the Romans to welcome (pooioovtot) one
another just as Christ welcomed (pootioto) you, to the glory of God (Rom
15:7). The special motive is that the welcome should be in a Christian manner, as
that of someone who belongs to Christ.
112
Welcoming or receiving has nuances such
as showing hospitality and having fellowship. Hospitality has a significant place in
the Christian community. Hpoot_ooi often appears in the letters of
recommendation but Paul adds two phrases tv |upio and oio ov oyiov in
his requests to welcome Phoebe.
The second request on Phoebes behalf is to help her in whatever matter she
may need from you. As noted in the section under poyo, it has a sense of an
open-ended request for aid in view of the expression tv o ov uov _pqq.
113
I
suggest Pauls requests for favours are based on her role as poooi for many
and for Paul as well. In the recommendation for Phoebe, her action for others is
given as substantial evidence to show that Phoebe is fit for receiving favours from
Romans. Therefore the contribution from Romans is not a futile move, but rather is
repaying or reciprocating her contributions to a wider community including Paul.
To conclude, Phoebe as the io|ovo plays an important leadership role in the
church of Cenchreae. Also, her role is stated in the title poooi of many as well

the connotation that Phoebe is to be welcomed with honour. Goodspeed suggests since Phoebe is a
person of high social status, and welcome has some connotation of giving her good housing:
Goodspeed, Phoebes Letter of Introduction, 56.
111
The prepositional phrase used with poot_ooi has the function of reminding the letter
recipients to offer proper hospitality to the recommended person; example, P. Oxy LXI 3857; See,
S. R. Llewelyn, NewDocs, 8:171.
112
Moo, Romans, 915; Fitzmyer, Romans, 731.
113
See above 4.2.3.3.
142

as Paul. Her expected role to the Romans should not be limited to the Spanish
mission, since poyo is not a definite matter in the request for help. The chiasm
of the passage is woven in such a way as to show the significant aspect of
reciprocity. Her action for others needs to be reciprocated and she is a woman
qualified for hospitality as well as help in whatever matter she needs. This gives an
insight about Phoebes contribution to the Pauline mission on the one hand and on
the other, Pauls way of presenting her and his desire of reciprocating her actions on
behalf of many as well as himself.
4.3. The Role of Prisca (Rom 16:3, 4, 5)
Aooooot Hpio|ov |oi A|uiov ou ouvtpyou ou tv Xpioo Iqoou,
oiivt utp q u_q ou ov touov po_qiov utq|ov, oi ou| tyo
ovo tu_opioo oiio |oi oooi oi t||iqoioi o tvov, |oi qv |o oi|ov
ouov t||iqoiov.
Greet Prisca and Aquila, who work with me in Christ Jesus, and who risked
their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches
of the Gentiles. Greet also the church in their house. (NRSV)
Prisca and Aquila
114
were a couple who made significant contributions to the
early Christian mission, as Jerome Murphy-OConnor puts it, the most prominent
couple involved in the first-century expansion of Christianity.
115
Pauls greeting in
Romans 16:3 and the fact that their names come first in the long list of greetings
illustrate their acquaintance with him and their significant contribution to his

114
Prisca and Aquila are mentioned as a pair in the New Testament. The diminutive form Priscilla is
used in Acts (Acts 18:2, 3; and 18:18, 26) whereas the proper form Prisca is used in the Pauline
epistles. Although Aquila was described in Acts as a certain Jew, a man of Pontus by race, we are told
nothing about Priscas origins. Both names are Latin and there is no clue about their ethnic origin. See
Cranfield, Romans, 374; J. M. Bassler, Prisca/ Priscilla, in C. Meyers, (ed.), Women in Scripture
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000), 136, 137, at 136.
115
Jerome Murphy-OConnor, Prisca and Aquila: Travelling Tentmakers and Church Builders BRev
8 (1992), 40-51, at 40. See also F. Gillman, who suggests Prisca as one of the cosmopolitan and
well-traveled women mentioned in the New Testament tradition; F. M. Gillman, Women Who Knew
Paul (Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament; Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992), 49.
143

missionary enterprise (Rom 16:3-6). The special characteristics of the greetings to
Prisca
116
and Aquila are: 1) Priscas name is mentioned first; 2) It is combined with a
cluster of appreciations (descriptive phrases) and thanks not only from Paul but also
a large group from all the churches of the Gentiles; 3) It is the longest in the list
showing their prominence among the people in the group of greetings; 4) The
greetings are directed to them as well as to the church in their house. These features
signify the zealous nature of their involvement in mission. The special rhetorical
work, which Paul employs to describe this couple, is also significant to explore.
The account in Acts 18 gives a picture of their background and relationship to
Paul. It is possible to assume that they had been leaders in Rome and actively
involved in mission prior to Pauls coming to Corinth. Due to the edict of Claudius
in 49 CE by which Jews had been expelled from Rome, they moved to Corinth and
based their business and ministry in Corinth (Acts 18:2). Paul, while on his second
missionary journey, met them at Corinth and stayed with them by virtue of the same
vocation, tent-making (Acts 18:3). After eighteen months of their stay at Corinth,
they moved to Ephesus with Paul (Acts 18:18-19). It was from Ephesus that Paul
sends greetings from Prisca and Aquilas church to the church in Corinth (1 Cor
16:8, 19). By the time of Romans 16:3 they may have returned to Rome after the
lapse of the edict in 54 CE. Later, they were again in Ephesus (2 Tim 4:19).
This section attempts to deduce the role of Prisca and her contribution to the
Pauline mission and analyze the rhetorical method Paul uses while speaking about
her and Aquila. Was her role related to her higher social status? What sort of
leadership did she play, as she is mentioned as ouvtpyo as well as one who risked
her life for Paul? What is the reason for the Gentile churches indebtedness to her?

116
Her name indicates that she was probably freeborn as it was not a slave name. See P. Lampe,
Prisca, ABD 5, 467-468, at 467.
144

Why was it important for Paul to greet the church in her house? How was she
engaged in ministry along with her husband Aquila? I will discuss these issues in
four sections: firstly, the social status of Prisca; secondly, her contribution to the
Pauline mission; and, thirdly, the relational aspect embedded in the passage; and
finally, the rhetorical analysis of the passage.
4.3.1. Social Status
In our journey to discover the social status of Prisca (and Aquila), we deal with
two important issues: whether she belonged to an affluent group and the reason for
putting Priscas name first when mentioned with her husband.
The social status of Prisca and Aquila has been widely debated. On the one
hand, scholars have suggested that they are of relatively high status because of their
patronage of Paul, frequent travels, and the capacity to own property in Corinth,
Ephesus, and Rome, large enough for house churches.
117
On the other, on the basis
of Aquilas trade and the travel costs, it is imagined that they need not be of high
status.
118
The criteria suggesting high status and social significance (hospitality to
the meetings of the saints and references to travel), according to Meggitt are not
sustainable grounds for regarding an individual as wealthy; he concludes that they
did not differ in their economic status from the rest of the church members or

117
Jewett, Romans, 956; Theissen, Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 90; Meeks, First Urban
Christians, 59.
118
Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 195. Lampe suggests a lower status is possible because of the
trade of Aquila and that the cost of travel is also affordable to lower class people. See Lampe, Paul to
Valentinus, 192-195. However, Hock suggests that for Paul, tent-making did not mean great wealth,
reputation nor prestige (1 Cor 4:11-13; cf. 2 Cor 11:7; cf. 1 Cor 9:18f) but o_o (1 Thess 2:9). See
R. F. Hock, Pauls Tent-making and the Problem of His Social Class, JBL 97 (1978), 555-74 at 555-
64. Contra Hock, Jewett suggests that this argument is not convincing and does not explain all the
evidence, since he suggests: Priscas house in the elegant Aventine quarter of Rome and that the
names of Prisca and possibly also Aquila were associated with the noble Acilius family indicates a
higher social niveau. Jewett, Romans, 956, 957. Contra Jewett, Lampe suggests lots of scepticism
regarding this opinion, Lampe, Prisca, 468.
145

society.
119
As Meggitt observes, the economic status of a person is not necessarily
related to a persons desire to be hospitable to others and neither to the ability to
travel. Pauls description about the couple also gives no clue about their social status
except their acquaintance with him and their involvement in ministry (there is
evidence of their trade as tent making in Acts 18:3). However, it is neither plausible
to assume a high social status and that they belonged to an affluent group, nor to
assign them to a much lower status. It seems that they were relatively wealthy and
influential in the Christian community because of their support for Paul and their
active roles in house churches, wherever they had travelled.
120

Out of the six references to the couple in the New Testament, Prisca is named
first in four of them (Acts 18:18, 26; 2 Tim 4:19; and Rom 16:3), whereas Aquila is
mentioned first in Acts 18:2 and 1 Cor 16:19 by giving preference to the male
name.
121
It is rare for a females name in a married couple to come first and this is
the only case in the Pauline epistles. It is possible that Prisca is of higher social
status, and more prominent and knowledgeable than Aquila (Rom 16:3; 2 Tim 4:19;
Acts 18:18, 26).
122

119
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 134, 135. He argues that hospitality is not indicative of elite
status since the desire of one to give others is a matter of fact rather than wealth. The hospitality
practised in antiquity does not signify the economic status of an individual. For example, the poor
market gardener (hortulanus) in Apuleius Metamorphoses extended hospitality to a traveller in spite
of his poor condition to afford the visitor. See Ovid, Metamorphoses 8. 631 (Philemon and Baucus).
In addition, people travelled for different reasons: business, work, health, religion, sport, tourism etc.
The means of travel also vary from expensive to inexpensive and travel per se cannot indicate status
in the first century world. See Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 132-134.
120
L. Gaston, Faith in Romans 12 in the Light of the Common Life of the Roman Church, in J. V.
Hills (ed.), Common Life in the Early Church: Essays Honoring Graydon F. Snyder (Harrisburg:
Trinity Press International, 1998), 258- 264, at 260. See also P. Oakes, Reading Romans in Pompeii:
Pauls Letter at Ground Level (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2009), 76-77.
121
Kurek-Chomycz lists the textual variants and he suggests, It cannot be excluded that some of the
textual variants in the passages mentioning Prisca and Aquila in Pauline epistles, ... may be
understood as intended to diminish the importance of Prisca. D. A. K-Chomycz, Is there an Anti-
Priscan Tendency in the Manuscripts? Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila, JBL 125
(2006), 107-128, at 128.
122
Meeks, The First Urban Christians, 59; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 892: Prisca was the more dominant
of the two or of higher social status and she may have provided the financial resources for the
business. Other opinions are that Prisca may be the more gifted than Aquila, the one who brought
most money into the marriage, or the one who was mostly contributing to their home-based
146

It seems that she, rather than Aquila may be Pauls sponsor, which denotes her
active partnership in the house church leadership. Winter argues that placing a wifes
name ahead of the husbands would indicate that the wife was of a higher rank or
social status than he.
123
However, although it is difficult to prove the higher status of
Prisca, I assume that her prominence was due to her leadership role in the early
Christian missionary movement,
124
since the greeting verb is directed to the couple
with preference for Priscas name and to the house church as well; Greet Prisca and
Aquila and the church in their house (v. 3, 4).
4.3.2. Contribution to the Pauline Mission
The greetings are due to the couple by virtue of their devotion to the ministry
as well as to Paul himself. They are portrayed as his fellow workers and as having
risked their lives for Paul. Both these descriptions require further elaboration.
4.3.2.1. ouvtpyo
Paul begins the greetings in Rom 16 by designating Prisca and Aquila as
ouvtpyoi ou (my co-workers, v.3). The personal pronoun ou emphasizes their
relationship to Paul and is thus more significant than qov, in a collective sense.
The phrase my co-workers in Christ Jesus, seems to imply their Christian work as
colleagues. The places where they were with him as co-workers were Corinth and
Ephesus, where they had resided when they were expelled from Rome due to
Claudius edict. They may have gone back to Rome by the time of Pauls writing of

ministry. Fiorenza finds the reason for her prominence may be her higher status, or her prominence in
mission or both. Fiorenza, Missionaries, Apostles, Co-workers, 428.
123
In the Roman colony of Pompeii women alongside their husbands were actively supporting
candidates for civic office. Winter, Roman Wives, 180. MacMullen comments that it is also common
to have a womans name written ahead of mans an inversion of status explained by neither of the
parties having any sense of status between them at all, or by the woman being free or freed, the man
freed or slave. See MacMullen, Women in Public in the Roman Empire, 209. See above chapter 3,
section 3.3
124
Contra Jewett, who asserts that it is less plausible to suggest she was more active in house church
leadership. Jewett, Romans, 955. Murphy-OConnor suggests Priscas prominence in the church; see
Murphy-OConnor, Prisca and Aquila, 42.
147

the epistle to the Romans and he lists them as the first of his acquaintances because
they were supporters of his ministry.
He elsewhere used this title for his associates in Christian ministry: Urbanus
(Rom 16:9), Timothy (Rom 16:21), Titus (2 Cor 8:23) Epaphroditus (Phil 2:25),
Euodia and Syntyche (Phil 4:3), Philemon (Phlm 1) and others such as Tychycus,
Onesimus, Aristarchus, Mark and Justus (Col 4:11), Mark, Aristarchus, Demas and
Luke (Phlm 24) and Paul himself (1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24). According to Ollrog,
ouvtpyo is a distinctive Pauline expression to denote one who labours together
with Paul as commissioned by God at the shared work of mission preaching.
125
He
analyses the word in the light of its frequent use in the Pauline letters. It includes: 1)
partaking in the divine commission (1 Cor 3:5-9; 2 Cor 1:24; 6:1-4; 1 Thess 3:2); 2)
working together with Paul in the activities of the congregation (1 Cor 3:5-9; 15:48;
16:10; 2 Cor 1:26; 6:1; 8:17, 23; Phil 2:30; 1 Thess 3:2); and 3) proclamation of the
word (in close association with io|ovo and |oiov; 1 Cor 3:8-9; 16:15-18; 1
Thess 3:2). Jewett also suggests that this usage is unique to Paul as it is nowhere
used in early or later church writings, and reveals a distinctive Pauline approach to
missional collegiality, referring both to himself and to others with this egalitarian
term.
126
Ellis argues that ouvtpyo is not used of believers in general, and that the
qualifiers with God, in Christ, of Paul, and for the Christian community
indicates whose work it is, the sphere and company in which it is done, and those
who receive its benefits.
127

125
Ollrog, Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter, 67; see also Dunn, Romans 9-16 , 892.
126
127
Ellis, Paul and His Co-workers, 440. They are co-workers with God (1 Cor 3:9; 1 Thess 3:2); in
Christ (Rom 16:3, 9; cf. 1 Thess 3:2); of Paul (Rom 16:21; Phil 2:25; Phlm 24); and for the Christian
community (2 Cor 8:23; cf. 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24). In 1 Cor 3:9; 2 Cor 1:24; 8:23, the co-workers are
implicitly distinguished from the congregation.
148

As a co-worker with Paul, probably Prisca functioned as a colleague in his
mission. Prisca is not denied the title ouvtpyo because she is a woman. Possibly
the function of Prisca is as Pauls associate, by fulfilling tasks like those of his male
co-workers and of Paul himself. Although she worked in friendly association with
Paul, the most part of her work was independent of him.
128
It is evident from the
Acts account that they shared the same occupation, tent-making, but here it is
obvious that ouvtpyo meant their effort and contribution to the Pauline mission.
The phrase tv Xpioo Iqoou highlights their endeavour in the Christian mission.
4.3.2.2. po_qiov utq|ov
The figurative language risked their lives for my sake in fact denotes
sacrifice on their part to save Pauls life in some endangered situation. The particular
episode in which they risked their lives (necks) (Rom 16:4) is unknown. There is a
widely accepted view that they have intervened to rescue Paul during the Ephesian
crisis referred to in 1 Cor 15:32 (cf. Acts 19:23-31). Jewett suggests that their ability
to save Pauls life in a dangerous situation shows their patronal capacity has its
impact from their high social status, in order to act effectively with authorities for
Pauls release.
129
The expression used is a colloquialism for risking execution. This
particular verbal expression alludes explicitly to death by decapitation.
130
Although
the phrase is a symbolic usage, it is possible that Prisca and Aquila might have
risked their lives for Paul (cf. Acts 18:12-17; 19:23-41; 1 Cor 15:32; 2 Cor 1:8-10;
6:5; 8:2; 11:23).
131
Therefore it indicates that they acted as patrons or benefactors of
Paul at some point (perhaps in Ephesus, cf. 1 Cor 15:32) at some personal risk to
protect the apostle when his life was in danger.

128
129
Jewett, Romans, 957. See discussion on the social status of Prisca, above 4.3.1.
130
Jewett, Romans, 957, 958. The form of quick execution was normally the privilege of Roman
citizens, avoiding crucifixion, strangulation, burning at the stake etc.
131
149

4.3.2.3. House Church
It is interesting to note that the second object of the main verb greet is the
church in their house. The subordinate clauses such as who risked their own necks
for my life, to whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles
are sandwiched between the two objects of the main verb. The word t||iqoio means
assembly and denotes political as well as religious groups.
132
In this context, it
denotes religious groups.
Prisca and Aquila established and supported a church in their house in all the
places of their residence. There is no clear evidence for the existence of special
buildings used for churches until the third century CE.
133
Rather the references are to
the gatherings in private houses, those ordinary houses given over to church
purposes.
134

The house church provided space for the preaching of the word, for worship,
as well as for social and eucharistic table sharing.
135
Women played an important
role in the founding and supporting of the house churches.
136
Paul greeted Aphia our

132
Jewett, Romans, 958. Paul used church of God (1 Cor 1:2;10:32; 11:22; 15:9; 2 Cor 1:1; Gal
1:13) and churches of God (1 Cor 11:16, 22; 1 Thess 2:14), which he did not use in Romans;
however t||iqoio was used in order to denote the Christian congregations in Cenchreae (16:1), in
Corinth (16:23), and in all other locations (16:4, 16).
133
J. M. Peterson, House-Churches in Rome, VC 23 (1969), 264-72; Fiorenza, In Memory of Her,
179.
134
W. Sanday & A. C. Headlam, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to the Epistle to the Romans
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902), 420; Ziesler, Romans, 351.
135
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 175. Fiorenza argues that the house churches presuppose that some
wealthy citizens have joined the Christian movement, who could provide space and economic
resources for the community. On the contrary, Meggitt suggests that wealth is not at all a deciding
factor in antiquity for hospitality. See Meggitt, Paul, Poverty and Survival, 134, 135. See above
4.2.2.2. I suggest that probably those women who supported the Christian community with their
resources were relatively wealthy.
136
Acts gives evidence that the church of Philippi began with the conversion of the business woman
Lydia from Thyatira (Acts 16:15). It is possible to assume that women were also involved in the
household conversions and house churches, along with men (cf. Acts 10:1ff; 16:32f; 18: 8f; 1 Cor
1:14, 16; 16:15f; Rom 16:23). See A. Weiser, Der Rolle der Frau in der urchristlichen Mission, in
G. Dautzenberg (ed.), Die Frau im Urchristentum (QD, 95; Freiburg: Herder, 1983), 158-81, at 166,
167; Klauck, Hausgemeinde; V. Branick, The House Church in the Writings of Paul (Wilmington:
Michael Glazier, 1989), 58-97; D. C. Verner, The Household of God: The Social World of the
Pastoral Epistles (SBLDS, 71; Chicago: Scholars Press, 1983), 127-180; Banks, Pauls Idea, 118-
150

sister, who, together with Philemon and Archippus, was a leader of a house church
in Colossae (Phlm 2). Prisca and Aquila were mentioned twice with the church in
their house (Rom 16:4; 1 Cor 16:19). Similarly, the epistle to the Colossians also
highlights Nympha of Laodicea and the church in her house (Col 4:15). Womens
involvement in the Roman church is seen by the number of women greeted,
constituting one third of the whole greeting (Rom 16:1-16).
137

Prisca worked for the establishment as well as support of the house churches
with her husband Aquila. Their tent-making trade helped them to support their
ministry financially, independent of any local church.
138
Although they were the co-
workers of Paul, they worked independently.
139
Their house churches in Corinth,
Ephesus and possibly Rome were centres for mission activity. Prisca seems to have
been proficient in teaching as evident from Acts 18:28, 29 (Prisca instructed Apollos
in the ways of the Lord).
140

The strategy of the mission of the couple is different from that of Paul in such
a way that they travelled as a pair and gathered converts together in house churches,

127; G. Dautzenberg, Zur Stellung der Frauen in der paulinischen Gemeinden, in Die Frau im
Urchristentum (QD, 95; Freiburg: Herder, 1983), 193-221.
137
The women mentioned by name in Rom 16 are eight and two more women, the mother of Rufus
and the sister of Nereus are mentioned in relational terms. Women may be included among the
house of Aristobulus and Narcissus, and also among the brethren or saints in Rom 16:15.
138
Klauck, Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche, 21-26; Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 178.
139
Fiorenza suggests that Prisca did not stand under Pauls authority. Fiorenza, In Memory of Her,
178. Standing under his authority is an unclear phrase to picture Priscas relationship to Paul, since
we cannot see (even in one instance) any conflicts between their missionary strategies. Their
relationship was governed by mutuality and also there was conformity in the mission agendas. The
similar features between Paul and the missionary couple were that they were of the same trade,
supported their missionary activity by themselves, were Jewish Christians, travelled for the cause of
mission, and suffered for the cause of the gospel.
140
There is a notion that Priscas role of teaching is not an official one, but one that was private. See
R. Schumacher, Aquila und Priscilla, TGI 12 (1920), 89-99; Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 202. I
suggest that her active leadership in the house church and her role as co-worker would clearly show
that probably she played the same roles as those of Pauls male co-workers. Osiek identifies that
some women taught mixed groups. Osiek, Womans Place, 162. See also R. W. Gehring, House
Church and Mission: The Importance of Household Structures in Early Christianity (Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2004), 216; A. Harnack, The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three
Centuries, J. Moffat (trans.) (New York: Harper, 1962 [1908]), 222.
151

so that they did not divide the apostolic io|ovio of the eucharistic table sharing
that establishes community and the word that aims at conversion of individuals.
141

Moreover, the house churches of Prisca and Aquila throw light upon the
members constituting house churches. They did not constitute only the members of
the family of the paterfamilias or materfamilias. They were most likely made up of
converts of other families, thus meaning the church that met at their house rather
than the church made up of members of their household.
142
The church in their
house seems to be the community of Christians regularly meeting in their house,
including, in addition to the Christian members of the household or familia, other
Christians for whom it was convenient to meet for worship in their house.
143

House churches played a vital role in the development of the early Christian
movement.
144
Whilst being co-workers of Paul, Prisca and Aquila seems to have an
independent footing in mission. The role of Prisca in the house church could be that
of leadership, which denotes her fervour and significance in the Christian mission.
4.3.3. Mutuality
Paul greeted Prisca and Aquila and the church in their house. The greeting
formula oooooot is combined with a thanksgiving formula tu_opioo in order
to express indebtedness not only from Paul but also from all the churches of Gentiles
(oooi oi t||iqoioi ov tvov). Here I will elaborate on the greeting formula as
well as the thanksgiving formula to deduce their involvement in the Christian
mission and to assess Pauls rhetorical tactics.

141
142
Moo, Romans, 920.
143
Cranfield, Romans. 2:786.
144
See for more discussion, F. V. Wilson, The Significance of the Early House Churches JBL 58
(1939), 105-112.
152

4.3.3.1. Greeting: oooooot
Prisca and Aquila need to be honoured and welcomed because they are fellow
workers, who have risked their lives on behalf of Paul, as discussed in the previous
section. Here the greeting is to honour and welcome Prisca and Aquila and the
church in their house.
The second person plural imperative form oooooot is used as the greeting
formula. It has certain unique characteristics. This is not merely sending greetings
but Paul asking his recipients to greet those people, you (plural) greet.
145

Aooooot cannot be translated as I send greetings to , as suggested by
Gamble.
146
That the greeting verb functions here as a surrogate for the first person
indicative form is an unconvincing argument that diminishes the significance of the
verb in the second person imperative form. Therefore, it is not merely passing on the
greetings from the writer to the individuals mentioned, but rather it asks the
recipients to greet them. This type of greetings is not a one-to-one greeting but
establishes and strengthens a chain of close relationships. It is important to note that
the greeting is also a type of recognition of the ones being greeted. The recognition
underlying the greetings in Rom 16 is a mutual recognition that Paul wants the
recipients to carry to one another that includes both men and women, who toiled for
the gospel or for himself. Therefore the greeting has several important functions: 1)
it acknowledges the roles of those who are the key figures in the church; 2) it has a
commendatory function, thereby calling for mutual honour and recognition; 3) it
establishes close relationships between not only the greeter and the recipients of the
greeting but also between Paul (who is pursuing the action of the greeting) and the
recipients of the greeting.

145
oooooot is repeated 16 times in the pericope (Rom 16:3-16a). This form shifts to oooovoi
(they greet) in v. 16b.
146
Gamble, Textual History, 93; Weima shares a similar view, Weima, Neglected Endings, 105, 108.
153

Paul (group A) asked the believers in Rome (group B) to greet Prisca and
Aquila and the church in their house (group C), which works as a direct greeting
group B to group C. This type of greeting is significant since it strengthens not only
the relationship between B and C but also that between A and C, and A and B, thus
creating a mutual bond.
4.3.3.2. Thanksgiving: tu_opioo
The tu_opioo formula
147
used to communicate gratitude (Rom 16:4) to
Prisca and Aquila is important as well as noteworthy. This formula is found in an
imperial inscription at Ephesus.
148
1. Eph. III. 961: tu_opioo ooi, |upio
Apti (I give thanks to you, Lady Artemis). The Pauline theme of thanksgiving
reiterates the theme of thanksgiving in the patron-client system. The idea of
thanksgiving reminds us of the reciprocal relations, since reciprocity governed the
entire gamut of relationships - human and divine in antiquity.
149

Paul has given particular attention to express his thanks to the couple. The
reason for his indebtedness may be at least two specially mentioned factors: for
being his fellow workers and for saving his life at some point even at the risk of their
own. Moreover, all the churches of the Gentiles are indebted to Prisca and Aquila.

147
Eu_opioo and tu_opioio are Hellenistic words, derived from _opi, _opiooi,
tu_opioo, which were not in existence before 300 BCE. See P. Schubert, Form and Function of
the Pauline Thanksgivings (Berlin: A. Tpelmann, 1939), 121. BDAG, 4I5, 416. Eu_opioo has
meanings such as feel obligated to thank, render or return thanks. The references in the Pauline
literature which express thankfulness to God are Rom 1:8, 21, 7:25; 14: 6; 1Cor 1:4, 14; 10:30;
11:24; 14:17, 18; 2 Cor 1:11; Eph 1:16; 5:20; Phil 1:3; Col 1:3, 12; 3:17; 1 Thess 1: 2; 2: 13; 5:18; 2
Thess 1: 3; 2 Thess 2:13; Phlm 4. See Moulton and Geden, Concordance to the Greek New
Testament, 440.
148
G. H. R. Horsley, Giving Thanks to Artemis, NewDocs, 4 (1987), 127-129, at 128.
149
J. H. Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace in its Greco-Roman Context (Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck,
2003), 320. In the Greco-Roman world, the rendering of honour and gratitude was a significant aspect
governing human-human as well as divine-human relationships. P. Schubert has identified that one of
Pauls purposes of thanksgiving is to honour the churches to which it is addressed and also Paul gives
thanks to God for grace on the house churches (1 Cor 1:4). He also suggests that the thanksgiving in
Rom 16:4 is at a colloquial, conversational level. Schubert, Form and Function of the Pauline
Thanksgivings, 83. Moreover, Pauls mode of thanksgiving reflects the Greco-Roman thanksgiving
conventions. That is, there is a tone of public praise for his converts and co-workers, for example, Phil
1:3, 5; 2 Cor 8:16; 1 Thess 2:13-15; Rom 16:4. See Harrison, Pauls Language, 269.
154

The reason for the indebtedness of the churches of Gentiles is not specified in the
passage. Cranfield suggests that the Gentiles are thankful for saving the life of Paul,
the apostle to the Gentiles,
150
but Jewett suggests that this view may direct the
attention to Paul himself, which may not be Pauls intention since his aim is to
honour Prisca and Aquila,
151
that they receive the universal recognition from
Gentiles. It is likely that the indebtedness is because of the significant as well as
sacrificial step the couple had made for the cause of mission in Corinth as well as in
Ephesus in their own right as well as by patronising Paul in his mission process.
Patronising the mission includes devotion, commitment and not least, the financial
requirements. These may be the reasons for which the Gentile churches were to be
grateful.
152

Pauls intention in conveying the Gentiles thanksgiving has a very significant
effect as far as the whole epistle is concerned. It echoes his theme of the unity
between Jews and Gentiles in Rom 14:1-15:13 and a sense of mutuality between the
two groups expressed in the Jerusalem offering in Rom 15:27.
153
Paul highlights to
the church this sense of unity and mutuality, and also draws attention to what Prisca
and Aquila have done for him. Here we can see some hidden motives of Paul,
primarily to honour and acknowledge the couples actions on behalf of him, but
secondarily to reciprocate their deeds of benefaction. There may be an implied
invitation to receive the universal recognition and thanks of others by contributing to
the Pauline mission by risky aid.
154

150
Cranfield, Romans, 2:786.
151
152
Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 27; Jewett, Romans, 958.
153
Oster argues that o tvq in Romans 16:4 denotes congregational religious culture more than
congregational racial character. R. E. Oster, Congregations of the Gentiles (Rom 16:4): A Culture-
Based Ecclesiology in the Letters of Paul, RestorQuart 40 (1998), 39-52, at 40.
154
155

Moreover, it is striking that the praise and thanksgiving come from all the
churches of the Gentiles. It kindles an image of churches from different corners,
honouring the missionary couple with one voice. This implies not only the couples
contribution to the Christian mission, especially to Gentiles, but also their influence
and ability to win the applause of all.
The believers of Rome are also joining with the activity of thanksgiving.
Therefore, the image is of a wider group giving thanks to Prisca and Aquila, made up
of Paul, all the churches of the Gentiles and the believers in Rome. This enhances
and strengthens bonds between those who have joined hand-to-hand in expressing
their obligation to Prisca and Aquila. This sort of commendation has an implied
agenda of refreshment and the establishment of new relationships, bonds and
friendships. Therefore the theme of mutuality is very much implied in the formula of
thanksgiving.
4.3.4. Rhetorical Analysis
The way Paul presents Prisca and Aquila is significant and rhetorically crucial.
It is significant in different respects. First of all, they are mentioned as associates of
Paul by describing their remarkable contribution with regard to his life by risking
their own lives. Then Paul moves on to broaden the sphere of their influence to all
the churches of the Gentiles, which possibly included the Romans. It also seems to
have an echo of Rom 15:27, where the Gentiles are mentioned as partakers of
spiritual things. The way of presentation is interesting as follows:
1. Prisca and Aquila were to be greeted by the Romans;
2. They were associates of Paul in Christ Jesus and risked their lives for Paul;
3. They were thanked by Paul as well as by all the churches of the Gentiles;
4. The church in their house was also to be greeted by the Romans.
156

As Paul describes them as his associates (ouvtpyoi ou) and as having risked
their lives for his sake, those phrases obviously state the relationship with Paul. But
their action on behalf of Paul was bringing to them thanksgiving (tu_opioo), not
only from Paul but also from all the churches of the Gentiles. His use of the language
oooi (all) is significant as it gives a wider picture of a community in gratitude to
Prisca and Aquila. Why did Paul use this type of implied inclusive language? I
assume he was using this language to show that possibly the action of Prisca and
Aquila benefited the Romans. He was not presenting explicitly that the Romans were
at the receiving end. But it seems that there is an implied inclusion of the Romans in
the phrase all the churches of the Gentiles. Moreover, since the Roman church is
predominantly a Gentile church, the Romans might be included in the wider group.
At the same time, the role of Prisca and Aquila was not limited to the Romans only.
Just like what was said of Phoebe, as the patron of many, here Paul is introducing
them with a universal recognition.
It seems that Paul and all the churches of Gentiles were on one side, and Prisca
and Aquila and the church in their house were on the other. The first group was
indebted to the second because of their actions, and as a result they were to be
greeted and thanked. Paul was giving reasons why the Romans should greet Prisca
and Aquila. It is an instruction, and he motivates the Romans to greet them. Thus
Paul rhetorically creates mutuality by giving instruction to greet and by describing
their actions and their association with himself and with the churches as well. His
rhetorical method forges mutuality.
Thus it is clear from the greetings to Prisca (and Aquila) that Prisca played a
significant part in the Christian mission. Paul is acknowledging her commitment and
accomplishments in the Christian mission. She was a co-worker of Paul and was
157

willing to support his ministry at all costs. Moreover, she may have been the leader
of the church in her house, as well as involved in teaching and preaching of the
word. Her contribution was profound as she was beneficial to all the churches of the
Gentiles, not solely to women but to both men and women. She was gifted to equip
leaders for ministry (Apollos). Her and Aquilas missional collegiality with Paul,
being his associates, was remarkable, even though they had different strategies and
methods of missionary enterprise. She was obviously a very important, well-
travelled missionary and church leader whose work on occasion intersected with that
of Paul.
155

Pauls method of presentation is significant as it creates mutuality. He
communicated to the Roman believers that Prisca had a key role in the Christian
mission. It is also an attestation that Prisca and Aquila are a precious couple to the
Christian churches in general and to the church at Rome in particular. The greeting
formula and the thanksgiving formula highlight the theme of mutuality, which is one
of the aims that Paul wanted to accomplish in the Roman church.
4.4. The Role of Junia (Rom 16:7)
Aooooot Avpovi|ov |oi Iouviov ou ouyytvti ou |oi ouvoi_oioou
ou, oiivt tioiv tioqoi tv oi ooooioi, oi |oi po tou ytyovov tv
Xpioo.
Greet Andronicus and Junia,

my relatives who were in prison with me; they are
prominent among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was. (NRSV)
Junia is a controversial figure among the recipients of the greetings of Paul in
Romans 16:2-16. The controversy is due to the fact that she is the only woman who
is called apostle in the New Testament. The four descriptive phrases used by Paul
are significant to understand Junias role: she and Andronicus are ouyytvti ou,

155
Bassler, Prisca, 136.
158

ouvoi_oiooi, tioqoi tv oi ooooioi and po tou ytyovov tv
Xpioo (16:7). Especially the last two phrases used for Junia (and Andronicus) are
significant, since such phrases are seldom used to describe Pauls co-workers.
However, the question of the role of Junia has revolved around two complex issues.
One is the name-gender debate and the other concerns her participatory role in the
apostolic circles (if the name refers to a woman).
The aim of this section is to show that the Junia greeted with Andronicus is a
woman and that she is prominent among the apostles. Therefore this section
attempts to discuss the debated issues regarding Junia to deduce her role in the early
Christian missionary movement in general and the Pauline mission in particular. The
issues such as the name-gender debate, Bauckhams arguments on Joanna-Junia and
her relationship to the apostolic band will be discussed in the first section, while the
other descriptions, which state her relationship to Paul, will be discussed in the
second section, and finally, the significance of Junias contribution to the believers in
Rome will be explored.
4.4.1. Junia or Junias? The Name-Gender Debate
Differently accented Greek forms allow the possibility for the name of
Andronicus partner in Rom 16:7 to be feminine Iouviov (from Iouvio o, q,
Junia) or masculine Iouviov (from Iouvio, -o o, Junias) or Iouviov (from
Iouvio, -o, o Junias).
156
The evidence shows that by far the most likely reading
for Iouviov is Junia.

156
Epp, Junia, 23. The masculine forms have been understood as the contracted forms of the Greek
name Iouviovo (Junianos) or the Latin name Iunianus.
159

4.4.1.1. History of Debate
Until the twelfth century, there was consensus (with a few exceptions)
regarding the name as feminine.
157
From the thirteenth century to the middle of the
twentieth century, scholars were more inclined to the masculine identification.
158
As
Thorley writes:
The universal view of the church fathers was that the name was Junia and
she was a woman and the English Authorized Version of 1611 followed
this in reading Junia, clearly a womans name; and in fact Junias
became a man in English translations only in 1881 when the Revised
Version was published. Luther, however, in his German translation of
1552 had already opted for den Juniam, and continental translations
have since then mostly followed this masculine interpretation.
159

Thus, it is also striking that very many recent views are in favour of the
feminine name.
160
The Greek texts, with different accentuations of the name attest
the name-gender paradox.
161
Similarly the translations
162
and the commentators
163

157
Fitzmyer, Romans, 737,738. Fitzmyer lists the patristic Fathers, who agreed that Junia is a female
character and identified the reasons for being qualified among the apostles. Those include
Ambroisaster, Chrysostom, Rufinus, Jerome, Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Ps-Prismasius, Oecumenius, John
Damascene, Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Hatto, Lanfranc of Bec, Bruno the Carthusian, Theophylact,
Peter Abelard, and Peter Lombard. The possible exception is Origen who once reads a masculine
name Junias in Rufinus translation of his commentary in Migne, PG 14, 1281B and 1289A in In
epistolam ad Romanos 10. 39. This is probably an error, because all the other witnesses to the same
commentary offer Junia and in In epistolam ad Romanos 10. 21, he uses the feminine name. See
Lampe, The Roman Christians of Romans 16, 223; Moo, Romans, 922. Epiphanius (c. 315-403 CE)
cites the name as masculine although it is overlooked. However his opinion is unreliable since he calls
Prisca also a man.
158
Giles (Aegidius) of Rome (thirteenth century CE) seems to be the first commentator to take both
Andronicus and Julian (the variant reading) to be men, based on the assumption that only a man could
be an apostle. Thus Junias, the masculine name was preferred to the feminine name till the 1970s. See
Bauckham, The Gospel Women, 167.
159
Thorley, Junia, A Woman Apostle, 18. Thorley argues that Junia is a woman and explored the
reasons for the most probable feminine name on linguistic grounds. Junia is a woman until Luther
opted for a masculine name, and its impact on the recent translations could be tainted with a
chauvinistic flavour. Thorley suggests that although Schulz arrives at the same conclusion, there are
linguistically several imprecise arguments in his article, which is clarified in his own article. See
Thorley, Junia, 19; R. R. Schulz, Junia or Junias? ExpTim 98 (1987), 108-10. Some continental
translations restore the name Junia; see e.g. Die Gute Nachricht Bibel, ad loc. The Authorized Version
of 1611 followed Tyndales translation reading Junia.
160
Burer and Wallace, Was Junia Really an Apostle?, 78. Thorley comments that recent
commentators have asserted that there is no justification for a masculine interpretation of the name;
see Thorley, Junia, 19.
161
The Greek texts with masculine accentuation are the United Bible Societies 3
rd
(1975)

and 4
th
(1993) editions and the Nestle- Aland 25
th
(1975), 26
th
(1979) and 27
th
(1993). Those with feminine
accentuation are Textus Receptus (Trinitarian Bible Society); Lochs (Ratisbonae, 1862);
160

show disagreement regarding the same. The conflict regarding the name originated
from the presupposition that no woman could be called an apostle and so the
accusative form of the name must refer to a male name Junias or Junianus.
164

4.4.1.2. Cases against the Masculine Form
According to the name-contraction theory, the shortened form Junias
(masculine) is a Greek hypocoristic form of the Latin name Iunianus.
165
The name
Iunianus is derived from the form of name (cognomina) ending in anus and from
gentilicia, whereas the male names in Greek end in o (the examples in New
Testament are Epaphras from Epaphroditus, Antipas from Antipatros). The
possibilities can be assessed by three factors: the occurrence of similar Greek names,
the evidence for the contracted form, and the context of the whole passage
containing Rom 16:7.

Tischendorfs 8th edition (Lipsiae, 1869-72); Westcott-Horts (Macmillan, 1881); von Sodens
(Gttingen, 1913); Souters 2
nd
edition (Oxford University, 1947); and The Majority Text (edited by Z.
Hodges and A. Farstad, Thomas Nelson, 1982). The Modern Greek translation of Vellas (United
Bible Societies, 1967) has added the feminine article to the name, which explicitly specifies that the
gender is feminine. For these details I am indebted to Cervin A Note Regarding the Name Junia(s) in
Romans 16:7, 464, 465. Some of the manuscripts read Julia in Rom 16:7, which is a feminine name
and it occurs in 16:15. Julia is found in P
46
6 it
ar, b
vg
mss
cop
bo
eth Jerome, which Metzger suggests is a
clerical error. See Metzger, Textual Commentary, 475, 476. See also U.-K. Plisch, Die Apostlein
Junia: Das Exegetische Problem in Rm 16:7 im Licht von Nestle Aland and der Sahidischen
berlieferung, NTS 42 (1996), 477-478.
162
The Revised Standard Version, New American Standard Bible, New American Bible, New
International Version, German Version (Die Heilige Schrift, Philadelphia: National Bible Press,
1967), Norwegian version (Biblen, Minneapolis: Norske Bibekselskabs, 1898) assume the name to be
masculine, while KJV, NKJV, NRSV, ESV, NET, TNIV, Latin Vulgate, (Nouyi Zavet United Bible
Societies, 1959), Russian version (Biblia, United Bible Societies, 1989) assume that the name is
feminine.
163
Modern commentators are divided on the gender of the name. Those who agree on the feminine
gender include Jewett, Dunn, Sanday and Headlam, Cranfield, Schreiner, H. Koester, whereas those
who agree on the masculine gender include Barrett, Murray. There are also some assuming the gender
to be problematic, who suggest that the issue cannot be resolved.
164
Cranfield, Romans, 2:788. He suggests that the possibility of the accentuation of the masculine
name rests on conventional prejudice and that the feminine name is ruled out by others because of
contextual reasons. Another notion is that the personal descriptions such as ou ouyytvti, ou,
ouvoiyoioo, and tioqoi and the relative pronoun oiivt, are all masculine. Cervin argues
that the masculine gender is used here because in the plural it is the generic gender. In order to refer to
a group of mixed gender, the masculine form must be used. For example, ou, ouyytvti, ou means
my relatives (masculine/feminine). See Cervin, Name Junia(s), 470.
165
161

The arguments against this masculine form of the name include the lack of
evidence for the abbreviated form Junias among Greek names from antiquity; and
that Junius and Junianus are even rare among Greek people. Cervin comments this
name does not occur in any extant Greek or Latin document of the NT milieu.
166
So
also Bauckham suggests that the name Junias is not attested, while Junia is well
attested.
167
Also, the claim that the name Iunianus could be shortened to Iunias (or
has been shortened at all) lacks evidence and thus the claim is to be considered
unwarranted.
168
Moreover, the general context of the passage does not exclude
womens active participation in mission.
Therefore it is unlikely that Andronicus partner in Romans 16:7 bears a
masculine name Iouvio or Iouvio.
4.4.1.3. Cases for the Feminine Form
Junia was a very common Latin name.
169
The typical Latin name has three
parts, the praenomen (personal name), the nomen (name of the clan or gens) and the
cognomen (family name). Probably other names are added as titles, honours and by
adoption. Latin nomina (clan names) often have the suffixes ius (masc) and -ia
(fem). Women usually did not have a praenomen but were named with their gens.
Cervin, in his analysis of the names has discovered a large number of Iunii in the
Greco-Roman world.
170
Peter Lampe counts more than 250 instances of Junia in

166
Cervin, Name Junia(s), 466. See also Bauckham, Gospel Women, 168.
167
168
Cervin, Name Junia(s), 467. The theory of the contracted name Junias has serious difficulties.
See Epp, Junia, 24.
169
Lampe, Roman Christians, 223; see Cervin, Name Junia(s), 467. Lampe suggests slave origins
in pre-Pauline apostles; P. Lampe, Iunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen
Apostel (Rm 16 7), ZNW 76 (1985), 132-134.
170
Cervin showed that the claim of J. Piper and W. Grudem that the name Iunia was not a common
womans name in the Greco-Roman world is erroneous by referring to a large number of women
named as Iunia. J. Piper and W. Grudem, (eds.), Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood: A
Response to Evangelical Feminism (Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 1991), 80. Julius Caesars murderers
sister is named as Iunia; the Iunia familia is found in Tacitus (i-ii AD) Annals (3.24, 69; 15.35); in
Livys (i BC i AD) History of Rome (2.5.7; 9.17.11); and in Cornelius Nepos (i BC) Lives (Atticus
18.3). Iunia Calvina (Vespasian 29.4) and Iunia Claudilla (Caligula 12.1-2) are mentioned in
162

Rome alone.
171
The number of occurrences of the name Junia is one of the pieces of
evidence for the feminine name.
The occurrence of the name-pairs in Romans 16:7 (Andronicus and Junia), and
16:3 (Prisca and Aquila, [certainly a couple]) shows the possibility for a feminine
name, even though the name of the sisters or relatives Tryphaena and Tryphosa in
16:12 appears paired in the same way. It is likely that Andronicus and Junia were
husband and wife.
172

The gender-biased interpretation based on the question whether women could
be included in the category of apostles is also unjustified because the majority of the
consensus opts for the feminine name. The church tradition from the Old Latin,
Coptic, Syriac and Vulgate versions and the early Greek and Latin fathers onwards
affirms a female apostle.
173
Moreover, Romans 16 is significant in indicating the
inclusive characteristics of womens ministry at different levels. Therefore the
feminine name Junia is the most likely reading for Iouviov.
4.4.2. Joanna Junia: Bauckhams Arguments
Bauckham opts for a sound-equivalence theory for the names Joanna and
Junia.
174
This theory is based on the postulate that the similarity in sound of Junia to
the Hebrew name Joanna (Yehohannah or Yohannah) is quite close and therefore he
suggests that the Junia of Romans 16:7 is the same person as Lukes Joanna (Luke
8:3).
175
It was customary to adopt a Greek name along with a Semitic name, which

Suetonius (i-ii AD) Twelve Caesars and also in Tacitus Annals. Men are also mentioned in Twelve
Caesars: Iunius Novatus (Augustus 51.1); Iunius Rusticus (Domitian 10.3) and L. Iunius Silvanus
(Claudius 24.5). There are quite a few women mentioned in the Latin Anthology and Latin
Inscriptions. Moreover a number of Greek authors are also mentioned by this name. For detailed
analysis, see Cervin, Name Junias, 468.
171
172
Cranfield, Romans, 2; 788; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 422; Ziesler, Romans, 351.
173
Belleville, Iouviovtioqoi tv oi ooooioi, 231, 232. Epp has come up with reasons
for accepting the feminine name Junia, see for details Epp, Junia, 23, 24.
174
Bauckham, Gospel Women, 181-194.
175
163

is in alignment with Roman political rule. Bauckham built his arguments upon the
presuppositions that both were among the founders of the Jerusalem Christian
community, that Pauls description of her as prominent among the apostles would
be meaningful with reference to the early Christian literature, and that the reference
to her in Lukes gospel attests her prominence among the women followers of
Jesus.
176

He argues the case with two possible considerations. First of all, other early
Christian missionaries also had a Greek or Latin sound-equivalent to their Semitic
name and evidently preferred to use the former when working in the diaspora, since
it was more culturally appropriate and user-friendly for non-Semitic speakers.
177

Among these are Silas/Silvanus, John Mark, and Joseph/Justus Barsabbas and he
finds a similar case with that of Joanna/Junia. Secondly, Joanna, with her husband
Chuza belonged to the Herodian aristocracy of Tiberias and hence Junia would be
her equivalent name used already in her Palestinian context, and would have the
appropriateness not only of being a sound-equivalent of her Hebrew name but also
of being a distinguished, aristocratic Roman name.
178
Although Bauckham stated
that he could not decide between the two possibilities, he took the second as more
plausible, since Joanna, as a wife of Herods Steward would have spoken Latin
already and thus would easily become a Christian missionary in Rome. He also
suggested the possibility that either the Greek name Andronicus could be the name
adopted by Chuza, or Andronicus would be her second husband, since Joanna was
already widowed at the time of Jesus ministry.
179

176
177
178
179
164

Winter has discussed Bauckhams argument for the possibility of Joanna to be
the same person as Junia. He does not clearly show his opinion whether Bauckhams
argument is correct or not, but rather suggests possible inferences from those
arguments. That is, even if Joanna and Junia were not one and same person, some
conclusions can be drawn from Rom 16:7, that
Junia is a married woman, who along with her husband has been a long-
standing Jewish Christian. Together they have been imprisoned with
Paul, presumably for their identification with his cause. They clearly
have a considerable sphere of influence among Christians, and while
Junia is unlike Phoebe in that she has a husband, both she and
Andronicus are connected to the leading authorities in this movement.
180

The evidence for Joanna as Junia is very speculative. Although there is a little
evidence for the name change hypothesis, it is not explicit from the textual evidence
and Bauckham can cite no exact parallels to this Joanna-Junia equivalence.
However, she possibly belonged to the earliest Christian community, since Paul
describes her as being in Christ before him.
It is also interesting to note B. W. Winters discussion on the possibility for
Junia of Rom 16:7 to be the same person as Junia Theodora.
181
The similarities
between Junia Theodora and Phoebe in Romans 16 have already been discussed in
the previous section on Phoebe.
182
However, the following arguments are put
forward against the identification of Junia Theodora and Junia. The reasons are:
firstly, Pauls description of her as in Christ before him and his kinsfolk are
irrelevant in the case of Junia Theodora; secondly, there is no evidence in the
inscriptions that Junia Theodora is married, whereas the names Andronicus and
Junia were linked by the connective and, just as Prisca and Aquila were (Rom

180
181
182
See above 4.2.2.3.
165

16:3), who according to Acts 18:2 are married,
183
hence probably referring to
husband and wife.
4.4.3. Relationship to the Apostolic Band
Pauls description of Andronicus and Junia is very significant: tioqoi tv
oi ooooioi. The phrase is translated and interpreted in two ways as
prominent among the apostles or well-known to the apostles. One shows the
inclusive nature of apostleship that she is one among them, while the other denotes
the exclusive nature that she is outside the sphere of apostles. The phrase
noteworthy among the apostles implies that Andronicus and Junia were apostles,
while esteemed by the apostles or well-known to the apostles implies that they
were not apostles.
4.4.3.1. Exclusive Approach
The exclusive view considers that Andronicus and Junia were well-known to
the apostles or esteemed by the apostles but not apostles in any real sense. The
assumptions of the exclusivists are: a) Paul uses ooooio only in its strict,
official sense; b) the article oi seems to point out the definite, well-known class
of persons almost exclusively so called
184
; c) the term apostle keeps the meaning
one commissioned and sent and is never used concerning men (or women ), who
go out of their own choice, and Paul never uses it in the wider sense; d) tv states
where these two were considered illustrious: in the circle of the Twelve at
Jerusalem (by is incorrect);
185
e) and the scripture would not be silent about
Andronicus and Junia, if they were prominent apostles.

183
Winter, Roman Wives, 201, 202.
184
C. Hodge, Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans (New York: Hodder and Stoughton, 1983),
449; see also Burer and Wallace, Was Junia Really an Apostle?, 81.
185
R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans (Minneapolis: Augsburg,
1961), 906-7; Burer and Wallace, Was Junia Really an Apostle?, 81; See also Murray, Romans,
2:229-30; Romaniuk suggests the term ooooioi as an analogical interpretation for Junia and
166

M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace have argued that the collocation of tioqo
with its adjuncts shows that, as a rule tioqo with a genitive personal adjunct
indicates an inclusive comparison (outstanding among), while tioqo with (tv
plus) the personal dative indicates an elative notion without the implication of
inclusion (well-known to) concluding that Junia was well-known to the apostles
rather than outstanding among them.
186
Junia as a member of the apostolic band is
agreed but her apostolic status is questioned in their thesis, which is based on the
following observations: tioqo implies not only a comparative sense as
prominent or outstanding among but also an elative sense as famous, well-known
to/by; the meaning of a term is linked with the context and the collocation of the
word with its adjuncts; in the comparative sense the substantival adjunct should be
personal.
This view is challenged by three critics, namely, Epp, Bauckham and
Belleville.
187
Bauckham argues that their method of interpretation is ambiguous
because of the minimal evidence to justify the arguments, whereas Belleville argues
that in Greek, the primary usage of tv and the plural dative inside and outside (with
exceptions) the NT is inclusive in/ among and not exclusive to and that they
fail to offer one clear biblical or extra-biblical Hellenistic example of an exclusive
sense of tioqo and a plural noun to mean well-known to.
188

Epp suggests that their statement the genitive personal modifier was consistently
used for an inclusive idea, while the (tv plus) dative personal adjunct was almost

Andronicus because they were not among the twelve disciples, which is vague in terms of Pauls
other descriptions. Romaniuk, Was Phoebe in Romans 16, 1 a Deaconess?, 133.
186
Burer and Wallace, Was Junia Really an Apostle?, 76. In this article, they analysed the inclusive
and the exclusive views and opted for the exclusive notion by picking up examples from biblical
Greek, Patristic Greek, papyri, inscriptions, classical and Hellenistic texts. See also Hutter, Did Paul
Call Andronicus an Apostle in Romans 16:7?, 778.
187
Epp, Junia, 76-78; Bauckham, Gospel Women, 175-176; Belleville, Re-examination of Romans
16:7, 243-248.
188
Belleville, Re-examination of Romans 16:7, 244-45.
167

never so used, cannot be taken without very significant difficulty depending on the
evidence they suggested.
189
Based on Greek grammar, the agent of the passive is
expressed by uo + genitive and not by tv + the dative case, which is used to denote
impersonal instrument and means.
190

The claim of the exclusivists that the term apostle is used only in the
technical sense is incorrect on the basis of its usage elsewhere in the Pauline
epistles.
191
The content and context of the passage show that the exclusive view is
unlikely. Verse 7 cannot be taken as an independent pericope but as a part of 16:2-
16. Women who are in leadership roles are greeted elsewhere in the greeting section.
The Bible versions with an idea of exclusivism: (CEV) highly respected by the
apostles; (Amplified) they are men held in high esteem by the apostles; (NET)
well known to the apostles certainly misread the text.
4.4.3.2. Inclusive Approach
The scholars who agree with the inclusive view argue that Junia was
outstanding among the apostles, and there is a consensus that she was an apostle
although not in the technical sense of the word. The inclusive approach takes the
term apostle in a broad sense.
192
Patristic commentators
193
and modern
translations
194
consider Junia a part of the apostolic band.

189
Epp found thirteen personal examples: eight tioqo + dative instances that are exclusive; no
tioqo + genitive that are exclusive; three tioqo + genitive that are exclusive; and two
personal cases that have tioqo + tv + dative but also are inclusive. See Epp, Junia, 77.
190
Cervin, Name Junias, 470.
191
Paul uses the term apostle not only in the technical sense with a meaning of being sent and
commissioned by God (1 Thess 2:6), but also as delegates of the churches (2 Cor 8:23; cf. Phil 2:25);
preacher of the gospel and other roles related with the establishment and the administration of the
churches (1 Cor 9:5; 12:28; Eph 2:20; 3:5; 4:11). See P. W. Barnett, Apostle, DPL , 45-51, at 47; H.
D. Betz, Apostle, ABD, 1, 309-311, at 309, 310.
192
Barrrett, Romans, 283, 84; Dodd, Romans, 240; Cranfield, Romans, 2:789; Ksemann, Romans,
414; Schreiner, Romans, 796; Fitzmyer, Romans, 739-40; Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 423; Dunn,
Romans 9-16, 895; Moo, Romans, 923; Jewett, Romans, 963. Dunn argues that Andronicus and Junia
belonged to the apostolic band in a short period following Jesus resurrection.
193
See above 4.4.1.1
194
The renderings are as follows: New International Version and New American Standard Bible as
outstanding among the apostles; New Revised Version and New American Bible as prominent
168

The adjective tioqo means marked out, distinguished, outstanding, and
prominent, which compares the person or thing with other representatives of the
same class and distinguishes it/them as prominent.
195
The notion of the apostle was
much broader in the early church than merely the Twelve. It is also used to
designate messenger, missionary preacher, or itinerant missionary. In the
epistles, Paul is strongly defending his apostleship: he claims to have had an
encounter with the risen Christ (1 Cor 9:1; Gal 1:1, 15-17) and also a divine
commission to proclaim the gospel (Rom 1:1-5; 1 Cor 1:1; Gal 1:1, 15-17) and the
acceptance and endurance of the labours and sufferings connected with ministry
and the results following as signs, wonders, and mighty works.
196
Therefore Epp
rightly argues that unless Paul had found these criteria in Andronicus and Junia, he
would not have called them apostles or even as outstanding among the apostles.
Though Paul is not referring to their resurrection experience, but points to the fact
that they were in Christ before he was and they were in prison with Paul and
therefore had suffered as he had for his apostleship.
197
Presumably, Paul is
acknowledging them as outstanding among the apostles for these reasons.
Paul meets all these criteria: he had seen the risen Christ; had a divine
commission; had sufferings and did signs and wonders. Probably he expects any
apostle to meet all four criteria. In the case of Andronicus and Junia, in Christ
before Paul they could have met all four criteria, even if Paul does not spell this out.
This is definitely not the same as an apostle of churches (2 Cor 8:23), who did
practical works or were missionaries (Acts 13).

among the apostles; New Century Version as very important apostles; KJV, ASV, RSV, NKJV as
who are noted among the apostles.
195
K. H. Rengstorf, tioqo TDNT 7, 267.
196
Epp, Junia, 69-71. The apostles of Christ include Barnabas (2 Cor 9:6), the brothers of the Lord
(Gal 1:19; 1 Cor 9:5), probably Silvanus/Silas (1 Thess 2:7) and perhaps Apollos (1 Cor 4:9), as well
as Paul himself; Bauckham, Gospel Women, 180.
197
Epp, Junia, 69, 70.
169

Paul is not specifically pointing out the reasons why they were honoured
among the apostles, but the other descriptions imply their toil in Christian mission
and thus strongly place them in a position of privilege.
Another question concerns the location of their apostolic ministry, that is,
whether they are related to any of the local congregations. Paul neither gives any
particular area as their focus of ministry as in the case of Phoebe in 16:1, nor
specifies whether they were witnesses of the resurrection. Jewett suggests that they
had functioned somewhere in the eastern mission during the time of shared
imprisonment with Paul, and that they are now in Rome.
198

Junias actual role is not specified but the description of Paul shows that she
had a role and it was not a case of Andronicus simply travelling with a wife who was
an appendage (1 Cor 9:5). She has shared imprisonment with him because she was
identified as a significant player herself in the Christian cause Junia had her sphere
of influence in the circle in which she operated.
199
Their apostolic status could be
counted in the same way as that of Barnabas, Silas, and Apollos (1 Cor 4:6, 9; 9:5-6;
Gal 1:19; 1 Thess 2:1; 2:7). Since they were in Christ before Paul, it is likely they
were members of the Jerusalem crowd who received a vision of the resurrected Jesus
(1 Cor 15:7).
Barrett does not support a second-grade apostleship in Pauline letters, but
argues for two well defined categories such as apostles of Christ (Paul himself and
Peter) and envoys of churches.
200
Although the categorization of Junias role is not

198
Jewett, Romans, 964. Bauckham argues that they were missionaries in the Greco-Roman circles,
which is one of the possibilities but not certain. Bauckham, Gospel Women, 181-203.
199
Winter, Roman Wives, 203. Fiorenza suggests that the traditional role as wife is not the matter of
consideration, but rather their commitment to the partnership in the work of the gospel. Fiorenza, In
Memory of Her, 173.
200
C. K. Barrett, The Signs of an Apostle (London: Epworth, 1970), 47. Barrett argues for the
translation of tioqoi tv oi ooooioi as men of note among the apostles, which is against
my argument. Barrett identifies different categories of apostles (ooooio or shaliah). They are 1)
the twelve; 2) the Supreme Apostles: Peter and John who belonged to the twelve and James who did
170

explicitly stated, she may be a representative of a church, as in the case of Paul and
Barnabas sent for evangelistic mission by the Antioch church and not as apostles of
the churches (agents or messengers) with specific purposes such as practical duties
for collecting money for the poor in the Jerusalem church (2 Cor 8:23). But apostle
of the churches in a sense of missionary agent is possible. Andronicus and Junia
possibly did the same ministry as that of Paul and Barnabas, they are itinerant
missionaries engaged in the work of the gospel and seem to have engaged in the
Gentile mission.
201

4.4.4. Other Descriptions
4.4.4.1. ouyytvti
In Rom 16 Paul identifies three persons as his kinspeople or relatives
(ouyytvti ou) in Rome, to whom he sends greetings and also three persons who
send their greetings to Rome from Corinth. The first group consists of Andronicus,
Junia and Herodion (Rom 16:7, 11) and the second group consists of Lucius, Jason
and Sosipater (Rom 16:21). 2uyytvq, is not mentioned in any of the other Pauline
epistles except Romans.
The term ouyytvq, could be used with different connotations. One of these is
to denote family connections to refer to a common ancestry or descent or literally
relatives of Paul.
202
It is unlikely to be the same as that of the oyoqo, iio,
which is a second reading.
203
Apart from the familial relations and friendly

not; 3) Apostleship of circumcision (Gal 2:8); 4) possibly Johns work; 5) the agents of Jerusalem
leaders (Gal 2:4; 1 Cor 15:7); 6) Pauls own apostleship; 7) subordinate apostles to the Jerusalem
church (possibly including Andronicus and Junia); 8) apostles of the churches who were delegates
or messengers (2 Cor 8:23; Phil 2:25). See Barrett, Signs of an Apostle, 71-73.
201
Fiorenza, In Memory of Her, 172. Betz also suggests that they could serve as a missionary apostle;
see Betz, Apostle, ABD, 310.
202
E. E. Ellis, Co-workers, Paul and His DPL, 186.
203
W. Michelis, ouyytvq, ouyytvtio, TDNT 7, 742. Fbrenga suggests that ouyytvti denotes
friend and not fellow countrymen, suggestions according to Lampe are based on shaky
presuppositions. See V. Fbrega, War Junia[s], der hervorragende Apostel [Rm. 16, 7], eine Frau?
JAC 27/28 [1984/85]: 47-64. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 74.
171

connections, it denotes those of the same tribe or race. It seems more likely that
ouyytvq, in Rom 16 denotes Jewish race. That is, Paul is here referring to
Christians who are fellow Jews with him.
204

Why is Paul interested in emphasizing Jewish relations in Romans specially?
Does it mean that the special recognition of a few as his kinspeople denotes the rest
of the people in the list as Gentile Christians?
205
Jewett suggests the possible reason,
as Pauls effort to affirm the legitimacy of some of the Jewish Christians currently
being discriminated against by the Gentile Christian majority in the Roman house
and Tenement churches.
206
Other than Romans 16, the term is used in Romans 9:3,
where he appeals that I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from
Christ for the sake of my brothers and sisters, my relatives according to the flesh
(ov ouyytvov ou |oo oop|o).
207
Pauls use of ouyytvq, is significant
because it indeed highlights the inclusion of Jews and Gentiles in Gods plan of
salvation (Rom 9-11).
4.4.4.2. ouvoi_oiooi
Another significant description of (Andronicus and) Junia in Rom 16 is
ouvoi_oioou (fellow prisoners of Paul) as used in Colossians 4:10
(Aristarchus) and Philemon 23 (Epaphras). The word prisoner (oi_oioo)
refers to a captive taken in a war.
208
It is interesting to note that Paul applies it so
selectively, only to four persons. The personal pronoun ou along with ouv
(with) indicates a shared experience
209
or a joint venture.

204
Clarke, Jew and Greek, 112. See also Jewett, Romans, 962; Dunn, Romans, 894; Bauckham,
Gospel Women, 170; Moo, Romans, 921; Belleville, Re-examination of Romans 16:7, 233;
Schreiner, Romans, 795.
205
Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus, 74.
206
Jewett, Romans, 962. See also F. Watson, The Two Roman Congregations, 210. Watson suggests
that Andronicus and Junia are linked with the earliest Jewish Christianity.
207
Cf. ouyytvti is used in Josephus, Ant. 1.276; 2.269, 278; 9.249; 11.341; 12.257, 338.
208
LSJ, 45; MM, 16.
209
172

It is clear from Colossians 4:3; Philemon 1, 10, and 13 that Paul was in
prison and the persons designated as fellow prisoners shared imprisonment with
him.
210
Although the occasion of imprisonment of Andronicus and Junia is not
specific, that does not reduce the impact of their effort. Therefore the term possibly
shows that they were imprisoned at one of the occasions of Pauls imprisonments.
They are his fellow prisoners in the sense that they too had suffered imprisonment
for their allegiance to the gospel.
211
Gerhard Kittel argues that fellow prisoner is
used in a metaphorical sense,
212
which seems unlikely since Paul was imprisoned on
many occasions (2 Cor 6:5; 11:23).
4.4.4.3. po tou ytyovov tv Xpioo
Pauls description of Andronicus and Junia as being in Christ before him
suggests that they were very early Jewish Christians, which is an accepted notion. It
denotes that their conversion experience was before that of Paul (prior to 34 CE),
which probably attests their apostolic status on the basis of witness to the
resurrection, since Paul refers to himself as the last of the series of witnesses to the
resurrection (1 Cor 15:8).
213
It also indicates that they could have been present
among the visitors from Rome on the day of Pentecost (Acts 2:10), and as the
members of the Jerusalem church, they could also have been involved in the
incidents mentioned in Acts (6:1; 11:19).
214
It seems that Paul wants the Romans to
acknowledge their task of mission for a longer period.

210
Luke refers to an overnight incarceration in Philippi (Acts 16:24-34), while Paul refers to many
imprisonments (2 Cor 11:23).
211
Bauckham, Gospel Women, 172. The same opinion is shared by the majority of the scholars like
Dunn, Jewett, Schreiner, Moo. Sanday and Headlam suggests a different place and time of
imprisonment and not the same as that of Paul, which is unlikely because the term implies the
possibility of the same occasion as that of Paul. See Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 423; Cranfield,
Romans, 788-789.
212
G. Kittel, ouvoi_oioo, TDNT 1, 196-197.
213
214
173

It is interesting to note Bauckhams suggestion that they were almost
certainly Palestinian Jews (unless they were diaspora Jews converted while visiting
Jerusalem) and probably members of the early Jerusalem church, that Andronicus
and Junia may well have been involved in the founding or early growth of the
Christian community in Rome and they must certainly have been leaders of
considerable significance among the Roman Christians as outstanding among the
apostles.
215
Although the expression is not explicit enough to draw a firm
conclusion, it is plausible that this couple had functioned as Christian apostles for
more than two decades before Paul wrote this letter to Rome requesting they be
greeted by other believers in Rome, who evidently were not inclined to acknowledge
their accomplishments and status.
216

4.4.5. Significance of Junia to the Roman church: Pauline Motivation
Why is Paul asking the Romans to greet Junia? What is her significance to the
Roman church? Firstly, the purpose of greetings in the second person plural is to
create relationships and bonds. Secondly, Paul acknowledges her toil in ministry,
which is also an encouragement for others to suffer for the cause of the gospel.
Paul describes Junia and Andronicus as ouyytvti ou and
ouvoi_oioou, which throw light on their relationship to Paul. This seems to
imply an equal standing in mission with that of Paul and his co-workers. But the
other two descriptions tioqoi tv oi ooooioi and po tou ytyovov tv
Xpioo explicitly state their relationship to the early Christian community and their
significant contribution to the Christian mission as well.

215
216
Jewett, Romans, 964. There is another notion that Andronicus and Junia were members of the
Antioch church and Jewett considers that view as less plausible because of their very early origin as
Christian missionaries. See also Ksemann, Romans, 414.
174

In fact, Pauls descriptions possibly imply in what respects they are remarkable
to the Roman church. Firstly, Junia is portrayed as an associate of Paul. She is not
only an apostle (in a sense of co-worker) but also prominent among them. The
reasons for their distinctiveness is not specific, but one can make out that the reasons
may include their toil (fellow prisoner) and missionary zeal (in Christ before Paul).
Secondly, Pauls description of her as prominent among the apostles seems to
imply the returning of benefits to Paul (honouring Paul through honouring her and
Andronicus) through the reputation of those who associate with himself (cf. Rom
16:3, 4). Thirdly, it reveals the mutual obligation which comes about by being in
Christ (cf. Rom 12:5). The phrase in Christ places all the human relationships in a
deeper context, i.e. we all belong together because we are in Christ/the Lord.
Reciprocity in the actions of Andronicus and Junia is not very explicit in the text as
it is in the case of Phoebe (poooi of many as well as Paul) and Prisca
(oooooot not only from Paul but also a large group from all the churches of the
Gentiles). But rather all are mutually obliged in the body of Christ.
Paul wants to make a chain of relationships. It seems that Paul wants to
establish and maintain relationship to the Roman believers on the basis of Junias
fame. Paul asks the Romans to greet Junia, who is a well-reputed figure among the
apostles, which in turn helps Pauls relationships to the Romans. By greeting
Andronicus and Junia, the Romans join themselves to the circle of those who
recognize them and therefore to Paul and to the apostles, who know and honour
them.
217

In conclusion, it is plausible that Junia is a feminine name and she is
outstanding among the apostles as well. Although the role is not explicitly made

217
Some textual variants (C* F G) read Iouviov for Iouiiov (Rom 16:15).
175

out as in the case of Phoebe as io|ovo of the church of Cenchreae, and
poooi of many as well as Paul, and that of Prisca, as her leading role in the
church in her house, we get a picture regarding Junias contribution to the early
Christian mission and the Pauline mission from the descriptive phrases. She is a
Jewish Christian and the wife of Andronicus and one among the leading members of
the Christian community known as apostles.
The greeting attached with the descriptive phrases denotes Pauls intention to
create and strengthen mutual relationships and bonds. Those phrases indeed throw
light on the significance of Junia and her valuable contribution to the Christian
Church. Her prominence among the apostles probably signifies her active leadership
in ministry.
4.5. Hardworking Members: Mary, Persis, Tryphoena, Tryphosa
The same descriptive phrase is used to describe four of the women in the
greeting list -- Mary, Tryphoena, Tryphosa and Persis (to labour |oioo, Rom
16:6, 12); oiio t|oiootv ti uo to denote Mary (v.6); oiio t|oiootv tv
Kupio to denote Persis (v.12); |oiooo tv Kupio to denote Tryphoena and
Tryphosa (v.12). This term is used only for these four women in the long list of
greeting consisting of a large number of individuals and groups, implying that these
womens works need to be appreciated and commented upon. These four women
were not working as a team, except Tryphoena and Tryphosa, which indicates
Marys and Persiss independent endeavour.
The verb is used elsewhere by Paul of himself (1 Cor 15:10; 2 Cor 6:5;
11:23, 27: Gal 4:11; Phil 2:16; Col 1:29; 1 Thess 2:9; 3:5; 2 Thess 3:8); of himself
and Apollos (1 Cor 3:8); of apostles in general (1 Cor 4:12); of the household of
Stephanas, including Fortunatus and Achaicus, and of other individuals (1 Cor
176

16:16; 1 Thess 5:12); indeed as a characteristic that would be reflected in all
believers (1 Cor 15:58; cf. Eph 4:28).
4.5.1. Mary (Rom 16:6)
Maria/ Mary in Rom 16 represents the pagan name of a Roman gens.
218
On
the one hand, the name was very common among Jews,
219
and on the other hand, the
name is used among Gentiles,
220
which poses a difficulty in deciding her ethnicity.
Lampe suggests that the greater possibility is for her pagan status, since Paul is not
identifying her especially as a kinswoman.
221
Jewett opts for her strong Jewish
background in Rome.
222

However, her toil for the Romans is specially mentioned by Paul as t|oiootv
ti uo she has laboured for you. It seems that Mary functioned as a missionary
in Rome and her work was on behalf of a congregation, since Paul specifies her work
for you. The verb labour occurs 23 times and the noun labour occurs 18 times in
the early Christian sources, and as analysed by Harnack, supports the technical
meaning of missionary and congregational work.
223
Dunn argues that the term does
not denote a leadership function, because Paul recognizes devoted work on behalf of
the church (1 Cor 16:16; 1 Thess 5:12),
224
that is, the willingness to meet the needs
of a new congregation such as voluntarily submitting to undertake tasks. But this
seems improbable, since one of the Pauline purposes of the greetings in Rom 16:2-
16 seems to be to commend those who are in leadership roles, including women. The

218
The Latin-pagan Maria occurs 108 times in the Roman inscriptions of CIL VI. The semitic
Maria cannot be counted even 20 times in Rome. Lampe, Roman Christians, 225.
219
Dunn, Romans, 893.
220
See Jewett, Romans, 960. She is likely a slave or former slave in the Marius family. Horsley
suggests that whether Mary was a Jew or a Roman cannot be determined with certainty by
examining the other examples of this name. G. H. R. Horsley, Maria the io|ovo, NewDocs 2,
193-95.
221
See Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 176.
222
223
Adolf von Harnack, |oiov (Oi Koiovt) im frchristlichen Sprachgebrauch ZNW 27
(1928) 1-10; Jewett, Romans, 961. See also Ollrog, Mitarbeiter, 71.
224
Dunn, Romans, 893.
177

verb implies honourable toil for the sake of the gospel or the community, and is
clearly a commendation.
225
The term as used elsewhere for Paul and his co-workers
in denoting apostolic labours in fact throws light upon her roles in relation to the
church.
The adjective oiio (much) denotes her hard work for missionary purpose,
probably denoting much longer time than others as one of the earliest members of
the church at Rome and its organization could have been largely due to her
influence.
226
Therefore Paul is appreciating her hard work for the missionary cause
on behalf of a congregation for an extended time and her leadership might have
helped the congregation to flourish in Rome.
4.5.2 Persis (Rom 16:12)
Persis may be Gentile or Jewish. It is a typical name for a feminine slave, a
name found six times in the Roman epigraphic and literary sources.
227
It is also
interesting to note that Paul adds one more descriptive phrase qv oyoqqv (the
beloved) for Persis along with one denoting her missionary task and toil as oiio
t|oiootv tv Kupio. In the Lord could be seen as a further sealing of her hard
work as a missionary for an extended period, as seen in the case of Mary.
228

Paul often indicates his affection for his fellow Christians, by referring to them
as my beloved [name] (Rom 16:5, 8, 9b, Epaenetus, Amplias, Stachys). The
beloved Persis denotes a close relationship which implies her relationship to the
Roman believers too. Ayoqo in vv. 5, 8, 9, 12, denotes a warm personal

225
Schreiber suggests community leadership of women with the use of the term |oioo (Rom 16:6,
12); Schreiber, Arbeit mit der Gemeinde (Rom 16:6, 12), 217. See also, A. L. Chapple, Local
Leadership in the Pauline Churches: Theological and Social Factors in its Development. A Study
based on 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians and Philippians, PhD diss., University of Durham, 1984,
398-349.
226
Murray, Romans, 2:229.
227
P. Lampe, Persis, ABD 5 (1992) 244.
228
See the section on Mary, 4.5.1.
178

relationship.
229
The Pauline description of some individuals as oyoqo is
important since he emphasizes the theme of oyoq in Rom 12:9-21; 13:8-10. Persis
played a significant role in the congregation and probably her roles needed to be
appreciated; she is beloved by the Roman believers and Paul as well.
4.5.3. Tryphoena, Tryphosa (Rom 16:12)
On the basis of the names found in the inscriptions, Lampe suggests that
Tryphoena and Tryphosa were possibly Gentile Christians from a slave
background.
230
Lampe does not think that they were sisters, while others argue that
the similarity in names and the conjunction and denote a sibling relationship.
231

They are described as labourers in the Lord |oiooo tv Kupio (v.12) indicating
their missionary work or work as local church leaders. Therefore they need to be
honoured for their toil in mission.
4.6. Rufus Mother (Rom 16:13)
Paul states that Rufus mother was also a mother of mine (v.13). Though it
is unclear what Paul really meant by this, it could be inferred that she might have
helped him in a specific situation or ministered to him regularly at some point in his
labours.
232
A mothers role is implied here.
Meeks suggests that the language of familial affection (e.g. mother, father,
brother and sister) is a characteristic in Pauline Christian groups and rare in
associations.
233
Members are unrelated in a literal sense but address one another or
name themselves in familial terms to express identity and feeling of belonging and

229
Dunn, Romans, 893. In v. 8, Amplias is described as Pauls beloved in the Lord, which shows
Pauls relationship with him as well as his position in the church.
230
Lampe, Paul to Valentinus, 169, 183.
231
P. Lampe, Tryphaena and Tryphosa ABD 6, 669. Those who think that they were sisters include
Ksemann, Romans, 414-415; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 879; Fitzmyer, Romans, 741; R. L. Omanson,
Whos who in Romans 16? Identifying Men and Women among the People Paul sent greetings to
Bib Trans 49, (1998), 430-436, at 433.
232
233
Meeks, Urban Christians, 31.
179

community.
234
As Horrell rightly suggests: Pauls labelling of Christians as
otio implies role ethics, a set of expectations as to how behaviour and
relationships should be structured which follow from a certain role-designation.
235

It signifies the Pauline vision of Christian community that upholds mutuality and
harmony in the relationships between one another.
4.7. Nereus Sister (Rom 16:15)
Nereus sister is also mentioned in a cluster of five names (v.15) and she is not
given any designation, and here the term otiq denotes her relationship to Nereus
as a sister in a literal sense.
Jewett suggests that the sister of Nereus is not personally known to Paul, but
Paul might have heard about her because of her leading role in the church.
236
That
may be the reason why Paul does not mention her name but refers to her as the sister
of Nereus. It is suggested that she and Nereus are the children of Philologos and
Julia,
237
but this is unlikely as there is no evidence given in the text. It is interesting
to note that she and Julia are among the leading members of the congregation (two-
fifths), which is possibly a tenement church, since it is led by a group of leaders
rather than by a single patron.
238
It is possible to assume a collective leadership in
tenement churches and that is also different in structure compared to the house
church, led by Prisca and Aquila.

234
Harland, Associations, Synagogues, and Congregations, 33. Harland suggests that language of
familial affection occurs in a number of associations, where the members are not literally related to
the same family.
235
Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 113. The term otio when metaphorically used indicates
that a sibling-like bond is expected from the two parties involved.
236
237
Cranfield, Romans, 2:795; Fitzmyer, Romans, 742; Moo, Romans, 926, Dunn, Romans, 2:898
suggest this view only as a possibility.
238
180

4.8. Julia (Rom 16:15)
Julia is likely a slave or a freed woman. She is a part of a group of five
members (v.15). Julia is connected with Philologus which probably indicates that
they were a married couple
239
or possibly brother and sister.
240
That Julia is
connected to Philologos with |oi (and) suggests that she was married to Philologos.
Like Nereus sister, Julia is possibly in the leadership of the tenement church as she
is one among the five leaders mentioned by Paul to be greeted in v.15. Therefore the
greeting acknowledges her work for the church.
4.9. Conclusion
Thus far we have attempted to study the roles of women in Romans 16:1-16.
Some women clearly exercised leadership roles since they were described with
descriptive phrases and those phrases indicated their different roles in the church.
Phoebe is the io|ovo of the church of Cenchreae and poooi of many as well
as Paul. Prisca was a co-worker of Paul and was willing to support his ministry at all
costs. Moreover, she may have been the leader of the church in her house. Her
contribution was profound as she was beneficial to all the churches of the Gentiles,
not solely to women but to both men and women. Junia is a feminine name. She is a
Jewish Christian and the wife of Andronicus and both are described as prominent
among the apostles, which is indicative of their leading position as well as special
function in the community. Mary, Persis, Tryphoena and Tryphosa were
hardworking women and part of the appreciated and acknowledged team, who had
supported Paul and his mission by various means. Rufus mother was a mother to

239
Sanday and Headlam, Romans, 427; Cranfield, Romans, 2:795; Dunn, Romans, 2: 898; P. Lampe,
Julia, ABD 3 (1992), 1125.
240
Jewett, Romans, 972. See also above, fn. 217: some textual variants (C* F G) read Iouviov for
Iouiiov (Rom 16:15).
181

Paul. Nereus sister and Julia were possibly part of the leadership team of a tenement
church.
Primarily, what we have deduced from these passages is the roles of these
women pertaining to leadership as well as roles related to Paul and active
participation in the church and his mission. Secondly, women were greeted and
appreciated for their hard work, which gives us an insight into Pauls attitude to
women in leadership. Paul refers here to women in various kinds of leadership
without feeling the need to offer any kind of explanation or defence; their leadership
is mentioned and honoured alongside that of men (or over men) without any special
remark, as if this was unusual or controversial. And the reciprocity he describes and
creates is thus quite gender-blind: he binds these women into webs of exchange with
himself, his churches and the Romans with mutual obligations going in all directions
irrespective of gender. There are no special provisions, or special expectations, or
special limitations because they are women: they are just like everyone else, and can
appear at any point in this web of mutual exchange. Their hard work is honoured and
reciprocated quite without reference to their gender.
The third, but not the least important matter in this passage is the aspect of
mutuality. Paul appreciates mutual relations as he asks the Roman believers to greet
those people. The rhetoric of the passage envisages mutuality and encourages mutual
relations between one another irrespective of gender identity.
This aspect of mutuality is not an exclusive theme in Romans 16, but may be
found more profoundly in the exhortation in Romans 12-15, where Paul repeatedly
emphasises one-another relationships through thematic as well as linguistic links,
which is the subject of the next two chapters.

182

Chapter 5
The Body Metaphor and oiiqiou: A Paradigm of Mutuality in
Romans 12, 13
5.1. Introduction
Womens ministry within the structures of mutualism, one of the important
aspects of the greetings (Rom 16:1-16), was the focus of the preceding chapter.
Although Paul pinpoints mutual relationships between Jews and Gentiles in Romans
1-11, it is apparent in chapters 12-15 that he desires to hold the believers together to
strengthen social relationships as one body in Christ (Rom 12:5).
1
The body
metaphor is also used by Pauls contemporaries such as rhetoricians, philosophers,
moralists and historians. Although Paul uses a similar rhetoric, he depicts it in a
Christian communitarian perspective.
It is striking that Paul speaks about the mercies of God in the beginning of
chapter 12, which is the whole story of the Gospel - the love of God (Rom 12:1 cf.
5:5, 8; 8:39), which is not accidental, since oyoq is a subject matter that runs
through Romans 12 and 13. The theme of love (oyoq) and the term one another
(oiiqiou) underscore mutual relationships that embrace the community together.
Paul urges on the Romans that social existence and social responsibilities should be
in tandem with their personal devotion to God (Rom 12:1, 2).
How does Paul describe mutual relations through the body politic and the
language of one another? The aim of this chapter is to discuss the body metaphor
and the exhortations of Paul to enhance love and mutuality, in order to deduce the
Pauline mutuality model implied in Romans 12 and 13.

1
Apart from 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12, the body metaphor is used in the deutero-Pauline
epistles (Eph 1:23; 2:16; 3:6; 4:1-16; Col 1:8-24; 2:17-19; 3:15). Kim recently suggests that the
different approaches to the conception of community as the body of Christ are: boundary-protected
community (ecclesiological organism); boundary-overcoming community (the New Perspective on
Paul as the matter of relationship) and the apocalyptic community (participating in the divine will).
Kim, Christs Body in Corinth, 11.
183

5.2. The Body Metaphor in the Pauline Epistles
Paul uses the body metaphor in the context of the charismatic community
(Rom 12; 1 Cor 12; cf. Eph 4:12; Col 1:18). As Dunn suggests, The body imagery is
actually an expression of the consciousness of community and oneness experienced
by the first Christians as they met in Christ.
2
In the ensuing sections, the
discussion is focussed on the body metaphor as a political metaphor in antiquity and
Pauls use of the body metaphor in 1 Corinthians and Romans.
5.2.1. The Body as a Political Metaphor in Antiquity
In the Greco-Roman world, the metaphor of the body is used as an
expression of political and cosmic solidarity. Ancient literature witnesses the use of
the metaphor for a social and political group. It is also used in homonoia (concord)
speeches. The most important themes in the use of the body metaphor in different
realms are unity, hierarchy and interdependence.
5.2.1.1. Unity
Unity is a common topos in the use of the body metaphor in antiquity. For
example, Plutarch describes the unity of the Greek city states with the same phrase
as Paul uses, tv ooo (one body).
3
In the speech of Menenius Agrippa, the fables of
Aesop are used to exhort the plebs to stop their agitation and submit to the
patricians, and were widely known in the Greco-Roman world; they compare the
state to the human body and the revolt of some members of the body against the
stomach until they were starved and revived their organic unity.
In the days when mans members did not all agree amongst themselves,
as is now the case, but each had its own ideas and a voice of its own, the
other parts thought it unfair that they should have the worry and the
trouble and the labour of providing for the belly, they therefore
conspired together that the hands should carry no food to the mouth, nor

2
3
Plutarch, Philopoemen, 8, cited by E. Schweizer, ooo |i., TDNT 7 (1971), 1041.
184

the mouth accept anything that was given it, nor the teeth grind up what
was received. While they sought this in an angry spirit to starve the belly
into submission, the members themselves and the whole body were
reduced to utmost weakness. Hence it had become clear that even the
belly had no idle task to perform, and was no more nourished than it
nourished the rest Drawing a parallel from this to show how like was
the internal dissension of the bodily members to the anger of the plebs
against the Fathers, he prevailed upon the minds of his hearers.
4

Aelius Aristides compares political turbulence to a disease like consumption,
to a tearing apart of the body, and to the folly of cutting off ones own feet.
5
The
body image is widely used by the philosophical moralists, who were Pauls
contemporaries. For example, Seneca wrote,
What if the hands should desire to harm the feet, or the eyes the hands?
As all the members of the body are in harmony one with another because
it is to the advantage of the whole of the individual members to be
unharmed, so mankind should spare the individual man, because all are
born for a life of fellowship, and society can be kept unharmed only by
the mutual protection and love of its parts.
6

Dio Chrysostom used the metaphor in his speeches.
7
The speeches of Dio
Chrysostom in Tarsus around the beginning of the second century point to the
polis, the city state, as a body, and strife, discord, or any civil disturbance as a
disease that must be eradicated from it.
8
Discord affects the whole body politic.
For he says,

4
Livy, History of Rome 2.32; see also Aesop Fables 132; Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 33.16;
Epictetus, Dissertationes 2.10.4-5; see J. Horst, tio TDNT 4 (1967) 556, 562f; Menenius in the
speech urges the Roman people to work together for harmony, abandoning rebellion.
5
Aelius Aristides, Orations 17.9; 23.31; 24.18, 38-39; 26.43. See also R. F. Collins, First Corinthians
(Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999), 459.
6
Seneca, Anger 2.31. See Collins, 1 Corinthians, 458.
7
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 9.2; 33.44; 39.5; 40.21; 41.9; 50.3. He also used the body metaphor to
refer to friends. Dio thinks that friends are more useful than the members of ones own body because
they can freely move around. See Discourses 3.104-107; cf. 1.31-32. See also Collins, 1 Corinthians,
458.
8
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 34.17, 20, 22; 38.12; 48.12; Aelius Aristides, Orations 24.16, 18. Dio
compares the citizens of the state to different aspects of the body such as eyes, with which to see the
citys interest, others as the ears to hear and some as the tongues to advise and some as the minds
(Discourses 39.5). It is said by the rhetoricians that strife in the political body is the same as the illness
caused by the improper working of the internal parts of the body. The body would be sick due to the
185

At any rate, if one were to run through the entire list of citizens, I believe
he would not discover even two men in Tarsus who think alike, but on
the contrary, just as with certain incurable and distressing diseases which
are accustomed to pervade the whole body, exempting no member of it
from their inroads, so this state of discord, this almost complete
estrangement of one from another, has invaded your entire body politic.
9

These homonoia speeches use the body metaphor to argue for unity or
concord.
5.2.1.2. Hierarchy
It is also significant to note the hierarchy of society affirmed by homonoia
speeches. It is assumed that the body is hierarchically constituted and that illness or
social disruption occurs when that hierarchy is disrupted.
10
In relation to class
conflict, the speeches reflect the social situation of ancient political thought as
opposition between the two groups in the ancient city: rich and poor, or upper class
(the haves) and lower class (the have-nots). Some of the examples are the
following: Aelius Aristides admires Solon, the quasi-legendary Greek forefather and
lawgiver: He was most of all proud of the fact that he brought the people together
with the rich, so that they might dwell in harmony in their city, neither side being
stronger than was expedient for all in common.
11
Dio speaks in Tarsus to the demos,
the main body of citizens as opposed to the small ruling class; sometimes he refers to
the conflicts between the Council, the small upper class and the Assembly, the large

disturbance of the natural and harmonious function of the different groups and classes. See Isocrates,
On the Peace 109. See also Martin, Corinthian Body, 38.
9
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 34.20. The speeches urging for unity are called homonoia speeches
(concordia in Latin). In the times of crisis, these speeches are delivered calling for unity or concord.
Within deliberative rhetoric - that is, rhetoric urging a political body toward some course of action
a popular topic was concord or unity. Martin, Corinthian Body, 38. Cf. 1 Cor 1:10 I encourage you
brothers that you all agree and that you allow no schisms to exist among yourselves; 12:25 that
there be no schisms in the body: Pauls major concern is the unity of the church, Christs body. M.
M. Mitchell categorizes 1 Corinthians as a letter with the topoi of homonoia speeches, since Pauls
main intention is the unity of the church. M. M. Mitchell, Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An
Exegetical Investigation of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians (Tbingen: Mohr, 1991),
65-66.
10
Martin, Corinthian Body, 40. Class conflict can also cause social disruption.
11
Aelius Aristides, Orations 24.14.
186

lower class of citizens. In the same speech, he speaks to the demos on its conflict with
the citys linen workers, who are quarrelling for civic rights and privileges.
12
The
strong and the weak classes of the society were in conflict with each other.
To some extent, the main aim of homonoia speeches is alleviation of conflict
by affirming the hierarchy of society. The political hierarchy of the city is related to
the hierarchical model of the cosmos, as each entity knows its position in the whole
galaxy. As Aelius Aristides says,
The sun proceeds in its course ever preserving its proper place, and the
phases of the moon and the motion of the stars go on, and the revolutions
and the positions of each in respect to one another and their proper
distances, and again their harmonies are preserved, since agreement
prevails among them, and there are no differences present nor do they
arise, but all things have yielded to the law of nature and they use one
will concerning all their duties, so that if imitation of the gods is an act of
men of good sense, it would be the part of men of good sense to believe
that they are all as a unity, as far as is possible.
13

Dio refers to the heavenly bodies and the elements of the cosmos that represent
concord.
14
However, it is interesting to note that the topos of the cosmos related to the
city could work in the reverse direction. Pseudo-Aristotle refers to the elements of the
cosmos by appeal to commonplaces regarding concord, noting that the opposite
classes could work together for unity maintaining hierarchy: It is as if men should
wonder how a city survives, composed as it is of the most opposite classes... that out
of plurality and diversity it achieves a homogeneous unity capable of admitting every
variation and degree.
15
Since it is assumed that the opposites are necessary for each

12
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 34.16, 21, 23.
13
Aelius Aristides, Oration 23.77.
14
Dio Chrysostom, Discourses 38.11; Air, earth, water, fire and ether are hierarchically arranged; see
Philo, On Joseph 145; 1 Clement 20; Marcus Aurelius, Meditations 5:30; Aelius Aristides, Oration
24.42; 27.35.
15
Pseudo-Aristotle, On the Cosmos 5.396b.
187

others existence, it would appear that the weak and poor are necessary to balance the
strong and rich - in the city as well as the cosmos.
16

In another topos of homonoia speeches the idea of the state as a household is
followed. While the cosmos works well, since every cosmic entity knows its own
position as well as its function, the household lives peacefully because the different
members do their own duty with mutual respect but with submission to those superior
to them in their families.
17
However, the interdependence between the family
members does not imply equality.
On the one hand, homonoia speeches have a familiar theme that one should
work for the common good by denying personal interests while yielding to others.
The upper class should honour the interests of the lower in order to maintain
concord and the common good. Aelius Aristides calls forth the opposite classes to
follow the pattern of the household, fathers to their sons and masters to slaves, i.e.,
on the one side, the ruling class by renouncing some of their authority and, on the
other side, the inferior are led by accepting the decisions of the superiors.
18

On the other hand, the conservative ideology in the Greco-Roman world may
be called benevolent patriarchalism which maintained the social hierarchy by urging
the lower class to submit to those in authority and the higher class to rule
benevolently and gently, accommodating its own demands in order to protect the

16
Contra Mitchell, who considers that the purpose of the whole political body is to make all members
strong. Martin observes, Homonoia is not aimed at equality or strength for all the members but the
preservation of the natural relation of strength to weakness. Mitchell, Paul and Rhetoric of
Reconciliation, 127; Martin, Corinthian Body, 41.
17
Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 24.24; 38.15; Aelius Aristides, Oration 24.7; Martin, Corinthian Body,
41.
18
Aelius Aristides, Oration 24. 32-33. See also Dio Chrysostom, Discourse 40.34; Demosthenes,
Epistle 3.45; Mitchell, Paul and Rhetoric of Reconciliation, 130-32.
188

interests of those lower down the social scale.
19
That is, the upper class continues to
rule without any reversal of positions.
Dio, while dealing with the conflict between Tarsus, the powerful city and
the smaller neighbouring towns in Discourse 34.47-50, advises Tarsus to yield to the
smaller towns without the reversal of their status. He thinks that discord arises
because of the oppression of the weak by the strong and he urges, the stronger
should yield to the weaker as long as the condescension does not yield to an actual
reversal of positions.
20
In a second speech, he addresses Nicomedia in Discourse 38
insisting that they achieve the title of the first city by being the benefactor of the
smaller cities in their area and surpassing Nicea in benefaction, with whom they
have conflict and dispute. He accepts the natural hierarchy, since he thinks that it is
not wrong for a man to seek recognition or the attaining of first rank.
5.2.1.3. Diversity and Interdependence
Apart from the aspects of unity and hierarchy, the differing gifts of the
members of the community as well as their exercise for the total benefit of the
community are the other significant features of the body metaphor in the Greco-
Roman literature. In the Sophist doctrine of society, Dionysius of Halicarnassus (c.
20 BCE) compares the state to a body with interdependent members: toi|t o
ovpotio oooi oii. ouvtov yop t| oiiov tpov toiv t|otpov
(How like a human body is a city. For it is also put together from many different

19
Martin, Corinthian Body, 42. Martin renamed Pauls love patriarchalism (proposed by Theissen)
as benevolent patriarchalism. See Theissen, Social Setting of Pauline Christianity, 107-110; D. B.
Martin, Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity (London: Yale
University Press, 1990), 26-30, 88-91, 126-129. Martin states that benevolent patriarchalism is used
by Greco-Roman writers; see Philos patreunous, On Joseph 67-69. Benevolent patriarchalism has
its position between democracy (excessive freedom of the masses and the enslavement of the upper
class to the lower class) and tyranny (harsh dictatorship that does not give ear to the desires of the
masses).
20
Dio, Discourse 34.6-7; Martin, Corinthian Body, 46.
189

parts).
21
Epictetus (c. 55 CE - c.135 CE) wrote, What, then, is the profession of a
citizen? To treat nothing as a matter of private profit, not to plan about anything as
though he were a detached unit, but to act like the foot or the hand, which, if they
had the faculty of reason to understand the constitution of the nature, would never
exercise choice or desire in any other way but by reference to the whole.
22

There is evidence in Platos Republic and in Ciceros On Duties regarding the
different functions of the members of the body.
23
Plutarch also comments about the
law of nature that the different members are for mutual preservation and assistance,
not for variance and strife.
24
Another tradition by Orphics and Stoics considers the
universe as the body of God.
25

It is important to note the reference of Seneca to the pantheistic tradition,
where humans are a part of the world body: omne hoc, quod vides, quo divina
atque humana conclusa sunt, unum est; membra sumus corporis magni. Natura nos
cognatos edidit, cum ex isdem et in eadem gigneret. Haec nobis amorem indidit
mutuum et sociabiles fecit. all that you behold, that which comprises both god
and man, is one we are the parts of one great body. Nature produced us related to
one another, since she created us from the same source and to the same end. She
engendered in us mutual affection, and made us prone to friendships.
26
Seneca also
expresses the difference between a composite body and a separate body in the
social sphere: there are certain bodies which are integers, a man, for example; and
others which are composite, as a ship or a house or anything, in short, whose
different parts are united by assemblage; and certain others again which are

21
Dionysius Halicarnassus, Antiq. Rom. 6.86.1; see Jewett, Romans, 743.
22
Epictetus, Discourses 2.10.4-5.
23
Plato, The Republic 370A-B; Cicero, On Duties 3.5.22-23; 3.6.26-27.
24
Plutarch, On Brotherly Love, Moralia, 478D.
25
E. Schweizer, ooo |i., 1037-38.
26
Seneca, Epistulae Morales, 95.52; see J. N. Sevenster, Paul and Seneca ( NovTSup 4; Leiden: Brill,
1961), 170-71. See Jewett, Romans, 743.
190

distributed, their parts remaining separate, for example an army, a nation, a council,
for the components of these bodies are united by right or duty, but by nature are
individual and detached.
27
Here ooo is used to refer to the legislatures as social
bodies.
The first century Jewish authors, Josephus and Philo referred to the body
metaphor. Josephus wrote, As in the body when inflammation attacks the principal
member all the members catch infection, so the sedition and disorder in the capital
gave the scoundrels in the country free licence to plunder.
28
Also Philo wrote about
the High Priest who offers prayers and asks for blessings in order that every age
and every part of the nation regarded as a single body (tvo oooo) may be
united in one and the same fellowship (|oivovio), making peace and good order the
aim.
29

The study of the body politic in the Greco-Roman world is significant as we
move on to the Pauline rhetoric of the body politic. Pauls rhetoric shares some of
the common topoi found in antiquity and both aim at creating unity. The question is
whether this goal is attained also in Paul by maintaining the social hierarchy and the
status structures that prevail in society. What is the special dynamism in the Pauline
rhetoric of the body politic?
5.2.2. 1 Corinthians 12: Exegetical Analysis
Paul uses the body metaphor to deal with the Corinthians erroneous view of
spiritual gifts that affects their social harmony (1 Cor 12:12-31). Pauls use of the
body metaphor in 1 Corinthians is important to this analysis because: a) it is an

27
Seneca, Epistulae Morales, 102.6; see E. Schweizer, ooo |i., 1034f; See Jewett, Romans,
743.
28
Josephus, Bell 4.406-407; cf. 1.507; 2.264; 5.277-279.
29
Philo, Special Laws 3.131; cf. Dreams 1.27-28. See Collins, 1 Corinthians, 459.
191

elaborate exposition of the body metaphor; b) Pauls portrayal is more descriptive
than in Romans; and 3) it helps to identify the different emphases in Romans.
5.2.2.1. One Body, Many Members (12:12, 13)
The one body is characterized by many members. In spite of its variety of
members, it is nevertheless one body. Paul uses two comparative particles for just
so also (|ootp yop ouo) and he applies the metaphor to Christ and not
to the church (v.12).
30
Garland suggests that the clause so also is Christ is
awkward only because Christ is shorthand for the church as the body of Christ
(12:27).
31
This notion is challenged as it would imply the ontological identification
between Christ and the church.
32
Barrett argues that such identification is
unthinkable for Paul since Jesus is the Lord of all the church (12:3). He observes,
Christ however remains always as the prototype of the relationship.
33

Paul aims to urge unity or oneness among the Corinthian believers. He
proposes that although the body is one, it has many members and although there are
many members, it is one. In 1 Cor 10:17, the idea that many are one body is drawn
from the concept of the Lords Table, many of them eating of the one loaf. Best
suggests that this is what Paul will argue from and not argue for.
34
Paul further
emphasizes that the body can function only through its diversified members.

30
In Col 1:18, the church is called Christs body. The same comparative particles are repeated in Rom
12:4, 5. Although Paul repeats the same subject to the Roman believers, the passage is shorter than in
1 Corinthians.
31
D. E. Garland, 1 Corinthians (BECNT, Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003), 590. Fee supports
the view that Christ means the church as a shortened form for the body of Christ. G. D. Fee, The
First Epistle to the Corinthians (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 602.
32
A. C. Thiselton, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2000), 996. The
following verses 12:12-30 do not support this view (Best and Whitley). Ksemann observes:
Ecclesiological metaphysics are read even into the Pauline statements in a highly dangerous way
to put the matter somewhat too epigrammatically, the apostle is not interested in the church per se
He is only interested in it so far as it is the means whereby Christ reveals himself on the earth and
becomes incarnate in the world through his spirit. E. Ksemann, The Theological Problem
Presented by the Motif of the Body of Christ, in Perspectives on Paul (London: SCM, 1971), 102-21,
at 110, 117.
33
C. K. Barrett, The First Epistle to the Corinthians (London: Adam &Clark, 1968), 286.
34
Best, Body, 96. Bests reading of 1 Cor 12 in the whole context of 1 Cor 12-14 is unsatisfactory. See
Fee, 1 Corinthians, 602.
192

Therefore there can be diversity in unity and unity in diversity. For just as the body
has many limbs and organs and yet they make up one body, so also the body of
Christ despite its various organs and differing functions, makes one body. Although
uniformity cannot be expected in differing organs and limbs that constitute a body,
there can be unity in plurality. Soards observes, Pauls point is unity dominates
diversity and makes diversity genuinely meaningful and constructive rather than
simply unity in diversity and diversity in unity.
35

5.2.2.2. Diversity of Members (12:14-20)
Paul affirms that diversity is part and parcel of the body. In vv.15-16, he
compares one sense organ with another and uses the classical rhetorical technique of
personification. As Thiselton suggests,
It is precisely not a late twentieth-century or early twenty-first-century
postmodern assurance that within certain boundaries everyone does
ones own thing. The respective functions of hands, feet, (v.15), ears,
and eyes (v.16) coordinate the organism as one. If each did not play his
or her assigned role, the one body would collapse into a chaotic non-
entity. Hence, v.15 not only reassures those who feel inferior that they do
indeed belong to the body, but also asserts the necessity for the coherent
unity of the body both of those who feel inferior and to those who
devalue others.
36

Since the many are expected to perform their assigned and different roles, the
body is a differentiated entity, i.e. plurality and diversity of the body is emphasized
(v.14). Paul uses double negatives in vv.15, 16 so that the result becomes positive; if
the foot should say, because I am not a hand, I do not belong to the body; if the ear
should say, because I am not an eye, I do not belong to the body. The foot and the
hand despite their difference belong to the body, the same with the eye and the ear.

35
M. L. Soards, 1 Corinthians (NIBC, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999), 263.
36
Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1002. The protasis of the conditional sentence uses an aorist subjunctive:
tov tiq o ou and means if the foot should say or if the foot were to say (NJB) or suppose the
foot were to say (REB), and the apodosis: ou| tii t| ou oooo (NIV) I am not of the body or I
do not belong to the body (NRSV, REB, NIV, NJB).
193

Difference does not indicate that the organs are independent. Similarly, there are
different spiritual gifts and those are to be used as being parts of one body.
Another type of rhetorical question is asked by Paul (v.17), representing the
members that belong to the body in pairs. The question seems to be like a chain:
eye/hearing, hearing/smell, etc. The absence of a single member makes the body
deficient; i.e., if the parts of the body that are necessary were lacking, it would
certainly hinder its proper functioning. Here it is clearly a message to those who
think they are inferior and also seems to be a logical move to challenge those who
assume that they are the ones who make the whole (body) as it is. Therefore the
differing tasks are essential and crucial for the proper functioning of the body.
The members of the body are properly arranged so that each one has its own
place (v.18). The phrase vuvi t expresses the logical now then; as Garland
suggests it introduces the real situation after an unreal conditional clause: but as a
matter of fact, God made the body with its intricately interconnected parts so that it
could perform at its optimum in the world.
37
In the traditional Hellenistic use of the
body metaphor, each one has its own place and the harmonious order in the body is
derived from nature. Paul affirms that God has arranged the organs of the body as he
willed (|oo qtiqotv v.18; cf. 12:11). Fee observes that the emphasis is not on
the orderly arrangement of the body; rather it is more likely on the divine
placement of each member.
38
As Thiselton suggests, to try to rank some gifts as
more essential than others, let alone as necessary marks of advanced status to

37
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 595.
38
Fee, 1 Corinthians, 611. He refers back to vv.7-11, where the spirit gives the various manifestations
to each person just as he pleases. In vv. 24, 27, Paul emphasizes that being many parts of the one
body is Gods design.
194

which all should aspire, is to offer a blasphemous challenge to Gods freedom to
choose whatever is his good will for his people both collectively and individually.
39

It is evident (v.19) that the body cannot exist if all the members are the same
(without diversity), where we find a thematic echo of v.17: If the whole body were
an eye, where would be the hearing? As Fee suggests, If all the parts were of one
kind, there would be no body at all, only a monstrosity! The concern for diversity
can scarcely be missed.
40

Paul sums up the argument (v.20) as he has made clear in vv.13-19 that the
body should have many members. tiq is rendered as members (NRSV) and as
limbs and organs (REB). tiq has a more specific physical sense than the word
members would suggest. tv and t are translated as on the one hand on the
other hand. It seems that v.20 may have the force of an axiom: many limbs and
organs (on one side) and the body (on the other). Barrett interprets it as a fact rather
than an axiom by translating: but in fact there are many members and one body.
41

Thus Paul has made clear that both diversity and unity are necessary aspects of a
body, i.e. the unity in diversity and diversity in unity. Then he proceeds to
emphasize the interdependence of its different parts.
5.2.2.3. The Need for Interdependence (v.21)
Paul explicitly states what he wants to convey by the rhetoric of the body. As
Thiselton observes, not only does the rhetoric of the body reassure those with
supposedly inferior or dispensable gifts that they do indeed belong fully to the

39
Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1004 (italics by Thiselton).
40
41
Barrett, First Corinthians, 290; F. Godet, First Epistle to the Corinthians (CFTL New Series, Vol.
XXX; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898) 2:214. Godet interprets this as an actual fact. It is a concise
epigram as suggested by Meyer, Robertson and Plummer; H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical
Handbook to the Epistles to the Corinthians: First Epistle (Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892), 1:376; A.
Robertson & A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First Epistle of Paul to the
Corinthians (ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914), 274.
195

body as essential limbs and organs, but this rhetoric now explicitly rebukes those
who think that they and their superior gifts are self-sufficient for the whole body,
or that others are scarcely authentic parts of the body, as they themselves are.
42

He continues, No subset of gifts or experience constitutes the esse of the church,
any more than some selected form of ministerial office represents the esse of the
church. Both the esse and the bene esse lie in the mutual respect for, and acceptance
of, what God has chosen (12:11) as that which promotes the Lordship of Christ
(12:3) and the building up of the church for the common good (12:7), in an equality
of status of those who owe their being in Christ to the gracious agency of the Holy
Spirit as a gift for all (12:13).
43
It is made clear that a single gift cannot be used to
evaluate other believers. The attitude of self sufficiency is not a part of the attitude
of Christ, as Paul describes self-sufficiency as having no need of others. Paul
compares the different organs of the body to the diverse gifts, they are for the
common good (12:7) and the diversity is so essential that no organ can say that I
have no need of you (1 Cor 12:21). The method of personification is employed by
Paul as he pictures an imaginary dialogue between the different parts of the body,
the eye, the hand, the head, the feet (cf. vv.15-16), and implies that some of the
Corinthian believers think they are the essential members of the body. Garland
suggests eye and head mean those in leadership roles, while the hands and
feet represent the slaves or the labouring class.
44
Paul asserts his point that the
body has many members and these several members are interdependent. Each organ
needs the other to exist, i.e. one needs another.

42
Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1005. (Italics original)
43
Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1006.
44
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 595. See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 610-11; D. G. Horrell, The Social Ethos of the
Corinthian Correspondence: Interest and Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement (Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1996), 179-180.
196

5.2.2.4. Honouring the Less Honourable (12:22-24a)
Paul speaks about the honourable and the less honourable members of the body
in order to demonstrate the need for interdependence. He uses the word
ootvtotpo, the comparative form of the adjective ootvq to denote the weaker
members.
45
Theissen and others consider it as referring to those with lower status,
whereas for C. E. Glad it denotes dispositions of character psychological
dispositions or character types revealing aptitudes and maturity.
46
The
common understanding of weak (ootvq) has changed in the wake of the
challenging thoughts of Glad and Martin. As Thiselton suggests,

Paul refers to people in the church whose role, or more probably
temperament, or perhaps both, present them as less endowed with power
or status than others. The strong or the gifted perceived them as not
providing much effective weight or power in the churchs mission, and
not much confidence borne of status. They were insufficiently impressive
to count for much, either socially or spiritually, within the church, or in
terms of what contacts or ability they might show for mission or for
speaking with wisdom and knowledge to outsiders. Probably they never
did effective mighty works or healing, seldom or never prophesied, and
perhaps never spoke in tongues.
47

Paul before drawing attention to the unpresentable parts (v.23), states that the
parts of the body which are less endowed with power and status are essential
(ovoy|oio). Possibly Paul calls the less endowed essential parts because the strong
and the gifted perceive themselves as the core of the church. It is worth quoting
Chrysostom: What is meaner than the foot? What is more honourable than the head?

45
1o ootvt ou tou (1 Cor 1:25); o ootvq o to (1 Cor 1:27), where the weak are the goal
of Gods election. The distinction between the strong and the weak (4:10) and the relation between
them (8:7, 9, 10) were discussed earlier in the letter.
46
C. E. Glad, Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian Psychology
(NovTSup, 81; Leiden: Brill, 1995), 333. Glad suggests that it does not refer to the social or spiritual
status of people or to their theological positions. In NRSV, NIV, NJB, and JB, ootvtotpo is
translated as weaker or weakest, but in RV more feeble and in REB more frail is used. These
translations can hardly be followed as per the suggestions of Glad and Martin in terms of disposition
of character. See Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1006.
47
Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1007. Fee suggests that Paul has in mind the internal organs, which are
weaker, but protected internally. It is striking that they seem to be weaker and need not necessarily
be so. If an organ is removed because of its weakness, it affects the wholeness of the body. All parts,
even if they are weaker make the body whole. See Fee, 1 Corinthians, 613.
197

For this, the head, more than anything, is the man. Nevertheless it could not do
everything on its own The greater have need of the less For nothing is
dishonourable, seeing it is Gods work.
48

Probably Paul speaks to a society where shame and honour are values and
forces, which are less known in our contemporary society. He points to the reversed
status of the weaker, less honourable and more shameful members of the body. Paul
concludes that the unpresentable parts are given more honour than the presentable
parts.
49
The word tpiittv is translated as invest, since it could be understood
in two senses, as bestowing or conferring (Prov 12:9, LXX) or as putting a garment
around (Matt 27:28; Mark 15:17). Therefore the unpresentable parts are bestowed
with honour to make them presentable. Here it is paradoxical as the less presentable
parts are adorned with more honour, which challenges the normal hierarchy of values
that honour the privileged and humiliate those who are poor in society. Paul
envisages the status reversals - the lower being made higher and vice versa; a parallel
paradox can be found on the cross.
50
Those who assume that they are gifted because
of their knowledge and wisdom are far from being the essence of the church. The
necessary and essential members of the church are constituted by the less honourable
and unpresentable parts.

48
Chrysostom, Hom. 1 Cor. 31:1, 2. Other Church fathers also applied the idea that the believers need
to give care, protection and support to those who are in need to follow the footsteps of Christ in
serving others. See D. Bonhoeffer, Christology (Eng. Trans., London: SCM, 1978); The Communion
of the Saints: A Dogmatic Inquiry into the Sociology of the Church (Eng. Trans., New York: Harper &
Row, 1963), and Ethics (New York: Macmillan, 1965); J. Calvin, The First Epistle of Paul the
Apostle to the Corinthians (Edinburgh: Oliver& Boyd, 1960), 268; M. Luther, Early Theological
Works, (trans.& ed.) J. Atkinson (London: SCM, 1962), 290-94.
49
Martin notes that the genitals may seem to be the most shameful part of the body, but our very
attention to them - our constant care to cover them and shield them from trivialising and vulgarizing
public exposure demonstrates that they are actually the most necessary of the bodys members, those
with the highest status. D. Martin, Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators JAAR 59 (1991),
547-89, at 567.
50
Horrell, Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence, 181.
198

5.2.2.5. Mutual Concern for One Another (12:24b-25)
Paul repeats the argument in v.24, which he has already put forward (v.18)
that God has arranged the members in the body according to his will, that God has
formed the body together (ouvt|tpootv),
51
and the purpose of joining the body
together is not to have bodily rupture (ivo q q o_ioo tv o oooi v.24).
Thus the outcome of Gods creation of the body and its arrangement is in
such a way to evade rupture (o_ioo), which echoes Pauls purpose of writing the
letter to the Corinthians in 1 Cor 1:10, where the term o_iooo (pl.) is used. The
opposite of schism is to show care for one another. Collins comments, Pauls
strategic use of the term is an indication of the careful rhetorical composition of his
letter.
52
ivo and oiio (v.25) express the alternative by avoiding the rupture in the
body. That is, the ultimate aim is that the members should mutually care for one
another (o ouo utp oiiqiov tpivooiv o tiq). This could be translated
as the same care for one another (NRSV, RSV); the same concern for one
another (REB); equally concerned for all the others (JB, RV). It is likely to denote
the mutual care among one another (the members of the body), who mutually need
each other to function as a body.
53
The care and concern of a person or a group is
not aimed at the benefit of the respective person or group, rather at the total care of
the whole body. It is likely that Paul has in mind the care and concern that spouses
need to have for one another since Paul used the same verb tpivoo in 1 Cor 7:32-

51
ouvt|tpootv is first aorist indicative of ouy|tpovvui. For the meaning compose the body (by
unifying the members so as to form one organism), see BDAG, 952.
52
Collins, 1 Corinthians, 465. Collins notes that the term o_ioo in the sense of rupture is rarely
found in the literature of the time, except in a document pertaining to the guild of Zeus Hypsistos in
an injunction against religious factions.
53
199

34, i.e., care that absorbs the attention.
54
God has formed the body and has joined
its parts in such a way that the least members have more honour (1:27-28).
1 Cor 12:26 gives the practical implication of the body being joined together
as to have mutual concern for one another, i.e., to suffer with those who are
suffering and to rejoice with those who rejoice (ouoo_ti, ouy_oipti, cf.
ouvt|tpootv v.24). If one member of the body suffers, then suffering could be a
common concept in the body politic (cf. 2 Cor 11:29). One can imagine if one part
of the body aches, then the whole body suffers the same stress and pain. The mutual
experience of suffering represents a Pauline emphasis as does the mutual experience
of rejoicing (cf. Rom 12:15).
55

5.2.2.6. Individual Members of the Body of Christ (12:27)
The core of Pauls thesis about the body metaphor is reached in v.27, now
you are (the) body of Christ and individually members of it (uti t tot ooo
Xpioou |oi tiq t| tpou). There is no definite article (for body) in the Greek
text. Kim suggests,
It is an urgent business of now (t ) in verse 27 that shifts the mood
dramatically from body analogy (12:12-26) to an exhortation for the
community (12:27). Now the Corinthian community should live the
body of Christ in their social, community life.
56

I would suggest that t denotes a shift of mood as well as emphasis of Pauline
purpose of body analogy as relational character. Fee comments, Paul is not trying to
say something about their relationship to other churches, but about their relationship

54
Thiselton, 1 Corinthians, 1011. Garland suggests, marriage means committing oneself in a special
way to the existence of another by involving oneself with the spouse in a relationship of care and
concern, and, given the Lords teaching about divorce, it is an irrevocable commitment. Garland, 1
Corinthians, 333. But Fee suggests the contrast between schism and same care for one another is
appropriate in the context of 1 Cor 11:17-34, where the division leads to less caring for others. See
55
Collins, 1 Corinthians, 465, 466.
56
Kim, Christs Body, 85. Paul exhorts the Corinthian community to get rid of their spiritual
hegemony and work towards achieving a loving community (1 Cor 12:31-13:13). A community finds
no meaning in itself without love.
200

to Christ and to one another. Thus he does not mean the body, as if they were the
whole, nor does he mean a body, as if they were one among many (true as that might
otherwise be). Rather, he means something like Your relationship to Christ (vv.12-
13) is that of being his body.
57

Paul describes God as the planner and creator of the body and that he intends
mutual concern for one another. Each believer is related to Christ and to one another
as a part (t| tpou). Each part has his/her function that contributes to the bodys
well-being.
5.2.2.7. Differing Functions in the Body of Christ (vv.27-31)
Paul explains the differing functions of the members of the body in terms of
ordering as first, second, third etc. The relative pronoun whom refers back to
members (tiq, in plural); the whole message about the body is aimed at
members. God has arranged (tto) is repeated as in 12:18 (cf.12:24). This is the
only instance in the New Testament where the gifts are listed in hierarchical order.
Four of the eight gifts appeared in the list (12:8-10) are the gift of prophecy, powers,
healing, and tongues. Does the ordering suggest rank? What do we conclude about
Paul and hierarchy?
The body politic in 1 Cor 12 demonstrates the relations between one another;
the body is a system of mutual interdependence and the members of the body act in
unity with each other. In the context of the spiritual gifts, each member is entrusted
to use his/her gift for the common good, motivated by the greater gift (love) that

57
Fee, 1 Corinthians, 617. In the statement, you are (the) body of Christ, the pronoun you takes the
emphatic position. Barrett writes: the genitive Xpioou is not of identity but of possession and
authority; not, the body which is Christ, of which Christ consists, but the body that belongs to
Christ. Barrett, 1 Corinthians, 292. Also Yorke suggests, Paul nowhere makes mention of Christs
personal body; not in v.13 and certainly not in vv.14-26 either. In fact, his ooo language in vv.14-26
is completely devoid of Christological content and this is rather strange, to say the least, if Paul were
really on his way to announcing metaphorically or mystically the Corinthians are the personal body of
Christ Himself (v.27). Paul thus summarises in v.27 what he wants to say analogically about the
Corinthians on the basis of vv.14-26. Yorke, The Church as the Body of Christ, 48.

201

seeks the welfare of others and does not seek self-interest. Do the unity and mutual
interdependence envisage egalitarian notions? It could be taken as egalitarian but the
idea is rather of status reversals; the lower the status, the higher the honour. In
another sense, it could mean one person taking the position of the other so that the
latter is given the honour of the former and vice versa. It seems to be paradoxical
because the less honourable are invested with honour and are the necessary parts of
the body.
The instruction to honour the weak looks like an attempt to equalise
inequality, but the listing of gifts as first, second, third etc. looks like an hierarchical
order. Rather than dismissing or explaining away either of these features, we need to
explain them both, and that is best done not by saying Paul is looking for an absolute
or static egalitarianism, nor by saying he allows or advocates a static hierarchy.
Rather, he suggests that whatever hierarchies there are in the body are not to be
reinforced but continually compensated for and overturned, by the attention to the
least honourable etc. Whoever finds themselves on top at any one time has to keep
looking for the needs of the apparently least necessary, and once they are on top
they presumably have to do the same. This creates a continually revised and
continually challenged hierarchy, a dynamic process which never lets anyone settle
down in a position of dominance or natural superiority.
Although Paul presents the body metaphor descriptively in I Corinthians, in
Romans he explores its implications in a lucid way.
5.2.3. Romans 12: Exegetical Analysis
Romans 12:4-5 seems to be a shorter exposition of 1 Corinthians 12:12-27.
The reason may be the Romans familiarity with the description of the body as
rhetoric used for unity, diversity and interdependence. Although it seems that Paul
202

here addresses the same type of audience as in Corinth (also he writes from
Corinth): pneumatics, Christians who overvalued certain more evident or
spectacular manifestations of the Spirit, his emphasis probably lies on the way in
which gospel was to transform the lives of Christians.
58
Rom 12:1-2 seems to be an
introduction to the following verses (Rom 12:3f) and signifies complete devotedness
of a believer to God.
59

5.2.3.1. Sober mindedness (12:3)
Devotedness to God manifested in commitment to the community is the main
focus of 12:3-8. V.3 highlights the need of sober mindedness (oopoouvq) as an
essential characteristic in the life of a Christian.
60
Paul admonishes each one in the
community about their perspective in relation to others in order to avoid thinking
beyond or super thinking. Ksemann suggests, Paul characterizes that soberness
as the criterion which resists over-evaluating oneself; while Jewett suggests, Paul
defines sober-mindedness as the refusal to impose the standard of ones
relationship with God onto others.
61
Over evaluating oneself results in the

58
Moo, Romans, 759.
59
Cranfield, Romans,2:611; Schreiner, Romans, 650; Moo suggests that the call to Christian humility
and unity is certainly one important manifestation of the transformation in thinking that should
characterize the believer; Moo, Romans, 759. However, Ksemann regards the passage (12:3f) as
breaking from the preceding verses, since itytiv suggests an imperative mood designating Pauls
charisma - through the grace which has been given to me (cf. 15:15; 1 Cor 3:10; Gal 2:9) and it has a
theme oopovtiv, which is indirectly related to vv.1-2: Paul borrowed this term from popular
philosophy (Aristotle, Nicomachaean Ethics, 1117b.13); and christianized it. See Ksemann, Romans,
322.
60
The repeated usage is notable: utppovtiv (to think proudly) povtiv (to think) povtiv
oopovtiv (to think sensibly). oopovtiv (qualifies povtiv) states the way in which one should
think (cf. 12:16; haughtiness prevents one from associating with the lowly). The other usages in
Romans are 8:5; 11:20; 8:6, 7, 27 (the cognate noun), 11:25 (adjective). The Pauline corpus uses
oopovtiv (cf. also 2 Cor 5:13) and its cognates oopovio (Tit 2:4), oopovioo (2 Tim 1:7),
oopovo (Tit 2:12), oopoouvq (2 Tim 2:9, 15), and oopov (1 Tim 3:2; Tit 1:8; 2:2, 5), which
denotes a steady, clear-headed understanding of the believer and his or her world that recognizes the
truth of the gospel. Moo, Romans, 760 (fn.12). povtiv was one of the primary virtues in the Greek
world. See U. B. Luck, oopovtiv |i. TDNT 7, 1098-1100; R. M. Thorsteinsson, Paul and
Roman Stoicism: Romans 12 and Contemporary Stoic Ethics JSNT 29 (2006), 139-161, at 149.
61
Ksemann, Romans, 334. Jewett suggests, Christian soberness makes use of all the opportunities
being aware of the limits and boundaries, for ones own existence, and that of others and the given
situation. Jewett, Romans, 742.
203

destruction of relationships as it leads to judging others on the basis of ones own
spirituality. As Schreiner notes, Believers are not to be proud but to have a sober,
sane, sensible, and realistic estimate of themselves.
62

Here it seems that Paul cautions against haughtiness and the improper
evaluation of ones own gift (cf. 1 Cor 12); however, prominence is given to the
functions which no community can be without and which obviously already enjoy
special prestige.
63
The exhortation is addressed to each one of the community
(ovi o ovi tv uiv), as each has been given a measure of faith
64
and to
evaluate in accordance with it. Here faith does not denote a special gift to perform
miracles (1 Cor 12:9 cf. 13:2), rather the trust each believer has in God; since this is
addressed to each member and indicate that measure of reliance on God which
enables _opi to come to expression in _opioo. It is the confident trust in God
which recognizes that all faith and grace is from God which prevents the
misjudgement of utppovtiv.
65

5.2.3.2. One Body, Many Members (12:4)
The soberness based on ones own faith is an essential element for the church
to function as one body; that is implied from yop in v.4 (for just as in one body

62
Schreiner, Romans, 651, 652. Ziesler notes, It stands for balance, clarity of vision, and good sense.
Ziesler, Romans, 652.
63
64
tpov ioto is interpreted in different ways. tpov is defined as standard of faith as Jesus
Christ; those who agree with this view are Cranfield, Romans, 2:614; Ziesler, Romans, 1989, 296;
Fitzmyer, Romans, 1993, 646; cf. Moo, Romans, 761; Morris, Romans, 438 or as the gospel
(Stuhlmacher, Romans, 192) and those who agree with measure or quantity of faith are Schlatter,
(A. Schlatter, Romans, The Righteousness of God (Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995), 231); Murray
(Romans, 118-119); Michel (O. Michel, Der Brief an die Rmer, 14th ed. (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck&
Ruprecht, 1978), 296-297); Leenhardt, (F-J. Leenhardt, The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans: A
Commentary (London: Lutterworth, 1961), 308-9); Dunn (720); Schreiner (653); Jewett (741). The
latter seems to be more likely as the verb ttpiotv with the noun suggests the measure of something
(cf. 1 Cor 7:17; 2 Cor 10:13). As Schreiner notes, the phrase relates to the apportioning of an amount
of faith instead of apportioning the standard of faith. Schreiner, Romans, 653.
65
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 722. As Dunn suggests, _opi is the divine commissioning and enabling
which comes to concrete expression in Xopioo (720). The self-understanding of faith as a gift of
God helps a person to get rid of pride in him/her. What prevents pride from cropping up is a sober
estimation of ones faith, and this sober estimation is based on the truth that God apportioned to each
one a measure of faith. Schreiner, Romans, 653.
204

do not have the same function). It is notable that the usage |ootpouo
(just as so; v.4, 5) is the same as in 1 Cor 12:12, where v.4 denotes the basis for
the comparison, while v.5 refers to the conclusion.
66

It brings to light the aspect of unity among the members of the same body: the
body has many members and all the members do not have the same function. As
Jewett comments, the two premises Paul sets forth are indisputable from the
perspective of everyday experience: that a body has many members, but all
members do not have the same use. The formulation of these premises moves
beyond any universal definition of the we that are joined together tv tvi oooi
(in one body/in a single body).
67
The use of poi (v.4) in Romans is
significant (not used in 1 Corinthians), since it denotes exercise (cf. Rom 8:13; Col
3:9), the continual actions that help the total functioning of the body in a healthy
manner.
Although it is not clear whether the passage refers to the universal church or
the local church, it is probable that the local church is in view, the Christian
community in Rome addressed in Rom 16, all who met in several house churches.
68

5.2.3.3. One Body in Christ (12:5)
How does Paul develop the body metaphor in Romans? Although it seems that
Paul is influenced by the use of body as a political metaphor in antiquity, one needs
to look carefully at the distinction between the political metaphor and the
ecclesiological metaphor. Paul in 1 Corinthians 12 and Romans 12 moves beyond its

66
Moo, Romans, 762. In classical rhetoric, a similitudo (similitude) is a type of argument drawn
from everyday experience, as contrasted with an exemplum (example) drawn from history or
literature. Jewett, Romans, 742. See also Cranfield, Romans, 302; D. M. Coffee, The function of
Homeric Simile AJP 78 (1957), 113-32.
67
68
Moo, Romans, 763.
205

Greco-Roman model to the body of Christ and body in Christ.
69
Jewett
comments that while Paul is speaking about one body in Christ (Rom 12), he
employs a metaphorical sense rather than giving a realistic identification of the
Christian community with Christ, while Stuhlmacher regards this as not merely a
metaphor but a reality which has been established for believing Christians by the
crucified and resurrected Christ.
70

It is significant to note the point here as the unity of the members of the
body for all their diversity, a unity brought about by the fact that they are all in
Christ, a unity that does not reduce them all to a drab uniformity.
71
Thus Christ is
the unifying matrix among the diversified members of the body -- one body in
Christ, which calls for unity and solidarity between different congregations as one
body. Schreiner suggests, Paul surprises the reader by emphasizing unity rather
than the diversity of the body of Christ.
72
I would suggest that unity and diversity
are important to the bodys proper function as Dunn suggests, without that diversity
the body would be a monstrosity.
73

The unity in Christ is achieved by the interdependence between the members
(each one is a member of others: o t |o ti oiiqiov tiq), i.e., vertical and
horizontal relationship working together. The expression o t |o ti each one,
individually denotes that each Christian is actually an interdependent member

69
See R. Jewett, Pauls Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict Situations (AGJU,
10 Leiden: Brill, 1971), 249.
70
Jewett, Romans, 743. P. Stuhlmacher, Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, (trans.) S. J.
Hafemann (Westminster: John Knox, 1994), 191. The phrases with the preposition tv (in) with Christ
and the Lord (including in him) as the object are used 165 times in the Pauline letters. The function
of the phrase in Christ points to the new identity in the community which holds the believers
together and acts as a unifying factor. This formula shows the belonging togetherness in the Lord,
which implies that the existence of the community is oriented to Christ. For more discussion, see J.
D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle (London: T&T Clark, 2003), 396-400.
71
Morris, Romans, 439.
72
73
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 725. The unity of the body does not imply equality of gifts and faith among the
members. See Schreiner, Romans, 654.
206

along with all others.
74
This unity is characterized by the in Christ relationship.
The corporate dimension of the body of Christ is emphasized; in Christ the different
churches as well as members of the community are joined together to become one
reality. As Jewett rightly affirms, Christ is the larger reality within which the
various congregations and individual members are to find their unity.
75

How is this expression (o t |o ti oiiqiov tiq) different compared to
the use in 1 Cor 12:27? In 1 Corinthians the members of the body of Christ is used
in a collective sense, but in Romans, it specifies and signifies the members of the
body as the members of one another. The implication of being members of one
another is expressed in Rom 12:9f and 13:8f.
76
Here Paul recommends a more
intense form of interdependence in comparison with 1 Corinthians; i.e. being the
members of one another (not just of something else they all contribute to), their very
identity as a body is composed of the contribution of others. So we many are one
body in Christ suggests a common belonging to Christ and by virtue of it the new
unity which is formed by being in Christ. They are not each one individually, but
as a corporate unity, all together in him.
77

5.2.3.4. Differing Grace to Differing Charismatic Gifts (12: 6-8)
The use of the body metaphor is explained in the context of the right use of
charismatic gifts. The grace is apportioned differently so that the gifts are also

74
Jewett, Romans, 744. See A. J. M. Wedderburn, Some Observations on Pauls use of the Phrases in
Christ and with Christ, JSNT 25 (1985), 83-97. Members have no meaning unless they are part of a
body that one cannot be a member of nothing. Morris, Romans, 439. It is also significant that Paul
wants each believer to be members of someone else. B. Wannenwetsch argues that being members
of one another works in the representation of Charis and ministry of others. I think, he focuses on
one of the aspects of being members of one another. B. Wannenwetsch, Members of One Another:
Charis, Ministry and Representation: A Politico-Ecclesial Reading of Romans 12, in C.
Bartholomew, et.al., A Royal Priesthood? A Use of the Bible Ethically and Politically, A Dialogue
with Oliver ODonovan (The Scripture and Hermeneutics Series, Vol. 3; Grand Rapids, Michigan:
Zondervan, 2002), 197-220, at 220.
75
Jewett, Romans, 744. See also Thorsteinsson, Paul and Roman Stoicism, 150, 151.
76
Refer below 5.3.1. & 5.3.7.
77
H. Ridderbos, Paul: An Outline of His Theology, J.R. De Witt (trans.) (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977), 371.
207

differently distributed. Dunn suggests that vv.6-8 are a continuation of the body
metaphor in vv.4-5,
78
implying the task or function each one has in the church in
relation to one another and that no one has been excluded from a specific task in the
church. It is appropriate not to think that the gifts are apportioned between office
holders only, since the use of the participle having, and the reference to the body
with many members, and the use of the many and each (12:5), and the grace
given to us (12:6) suggest that each person in the church has a charismatic gift
(_opioo). The different gifts are to be used with regard to one another so that the
specific purposes of the gifts are being fulfilled. Each Christian is a recipient of
grace (_opi) and charismatic gifts (_opiooo) are the expressions of the grace
received. Jewett observes, This rhetorically effective wordplay between _opi and
_opiooo, ... resulting in a shift of emphasis away from the more spectacularly
ecstatic manifestation such as glossolalia to the sober expressions of the
congregational leadership mentioned in Romans.
79
The gift of tongues is meant
for ones own spiritual edification (1 Cor 14), while other gifts (in Romans tongues
is not mentioned) work in relation to one another.
How does Paul base his exhortations on mutuality in Romans 12 and 13 other
than the discussion on the body metaphor? The following sections focus on this
query.
5.3. Love Enhancing Mutuality in Romans
80
(Rom 12:9-13; 13:8-10)
Pauls strategies to bring forth mutuality in the community are very obvious in
Romans as he repeatedly uses key words such as oyoq and oiiqiou, followed

78
79
80
Love can enhance mutuality and vice versa. It could be read in both ways as love increases
mutuality or mutual relation increases love, since Paul considers love as an essential ingredient in the
Christian life that love should guide all actions (1 Cor 13; Rom 12, 13); the gifts and charismata are
irrelevant without it.
208

by the body metaphor. In Romans oyoq (Rom 5:5, 8; 8:35, 39; 12:9; 13:10, 10;
14:15; 15:30) is used 9 times; oyooo (Rom 8:28, 37; 9:13, 25 a, b; 13: 8a, b, 9) is
used 8 times; and oiiqiou (Rom 1:12, 27; 2:15; 12:5, 10a, b, 16; 13:8; 14:13, 19;
15:5, 7, 14; 16:16)
81
is used 14 times (nearly all of them -11 times - in chapters 12-
16). The core of the message Paul conveys here is to honour others more than
oneself through genuine love. Thus oyoq shows the character of real love as love
of the higher lifting up the lower and giving ones self in its totality for others.
In Rom 12:9-21; 13:8-10, love is the prominent theme, where Paul launches
into a series of exhortations on the internal life of the Christian community and its
relation to the outside world.
82
The following sections focus on selected issues such
as genuine love, brotherly affection, honour, generosity and hospitality, identifying
love, harmonious living and obligatory love.
5.3.1. Genuine Love (12:9)
Paul exhorts that love should be genuine (12:9), which seems to be the caption
of the entire pericope
83
(cf. 2 Cor 6:6; cf. 1 Pet 1:22); in other words, love (is)
without pretense. Verse 9a describes the practical implication of vv.1-8. Wilson
notes that 12:9 has a gnomic form that gives the definition of love rather than

81
Although it is used elsewhere in the Pauline letters, it is not used as extensively in Romans (1 Cor
7:5; 11:33; 12:25; 16:20; 2 Cor 13:12; Gal 5:13, 15a, b, 17, 26a, b, c; 6:2; Phil 2:3; 1 Thess 3:12; 4:9,
18; 5:11, 15; 2 Thess 1:3; cf. Eph 4:2, 25, 32; 5:21; Col 3:9, 13; Tit 3:3). Lowe notes, the oiiqiov
reciprocal pronoun ... acts as a call to functionalize the theological truth in concrete relationships and
behaviours. S. D. Lowe, Rethinking the Female Status/ Function Question: The Jew/Gentile
Relationship As Paradigm, JETS 34 (1991), 59-75, at 70.
82
The pericope in 12:9-21 seems to be similar to the love hymn in 1 Corinthians 13, both preceded by
the exposition on the body metaphor. Moreover, both portray the different dimensions and
implications of love in the day to day life of a Christian. However, mutual relationships are more
emphasized in Romans.
83
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 739; M. Black, Romans (NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 15; W. T.
Wilson, Love without Pretense: Romans 12:9-11 and Hellenistic-Jewish Wisdom Literature
(Tbingen: Mohr, 1991), 142, 150; Stuhlmacher, Romans, 195; Jewett, Romans, 758. Ksemann does
not agree that the section has love as heading. He suggests, It is simply one mode of behaviour
among others, not the criterion and true modality of all the rest. Ksemann, Romans, 343.
209

insisting on the performance of the love.
84
He comments that the individual devotion
to God as a result of the gift of salvation is the foundation of charismatic ethic (12:1,
2) and it is built upon the love (v.9).
85
It is likely that Paul has in mind the love that
is already in the Roman churches, love among believers.
Most scholars agree that the term oyoq is used more by early Christians than
other contemporary writers.
86
Dunn relates the use of the term oyoq to the social
context of love feast among the Roman believers.
87
This love is not limited to
believers, but it should be offered to strangers and persecutors (12:13-14). Love is
the root of all the rest and such love is poured into the heart (5:5) of each member
of the community (1:7), to be both spontaneous and indiscriminately generous.
88

Paul labels love as genuine, without pretense rather than sincere or
unhypocritical.
89
Why does Paul use the adjective ovuo|pio? It may be
because he foresees the possibility of corrupted love that deceives, since the
adjective is derived from uo|piq (actor). A similar saying is found in Prov 27:5
and among pre-Socratic philosophers
90
envisaging friendship (a different word is

84
Wilson, Love without Pretense, 150-51. As Wilson notes let love be without pretense, is the
traditional translation of v.9a. The gnomic form has only a noun and adjective and does not
necessarily need an imperative verb, which seems to be the same in 12:9a q oyoq ovuo |pio.
He cites the famous Delphic maxim as verbless and nounless: qtv oyov Nothing to excess, see
Jewett, Romans, 758. He lists the similar sayings in Cleobulus Epig. 1; Thales Epig. ded.11-13;
Pittacus Epig. 11; Periander Ep. 11.
85
Wilson, Love without Pretense, 155. The use of the definite article implies the particular nature of
love, as a well known virtue (Moo, Romans, 775) and to avoid other unwanted interpretations.
86
V. Warnach, Agape. Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie (Dsseldorf :
Patmos, 1951), 106-44; Ceslas Spicq, Agape dans le Nouveau Testament. Analyse des Textes, EtBib
(Paris:Gabalda, 1958-59) 1:208-315; 2:9-305; V. P. Furnish, The Love Command in the New
Testament (London: SCM , 1973), 102-11; John Piper, Love your Enemies: Jesus Love Command in
the Synoptic Gospels and the Early Christian Paranesis (SNTS 38; Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press, 1979) 4-18, 102-8; Wilson, Love without Pretense, 151.
87
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 739. Jewett thinks that Dunn is the only commentator to mention the agape
meal in the early churches use of the term. See Jewett, Romans, 758.
88
Jewett, Romans, 758. Ksemann defines love as being for others and genuine love is whole
hearted and disinterested service. Ksemann, Romans, 345.
89
U. Wilckens, uo|pivooi |i, TDNT 8 (1972), 559-71. He thinks genuine is an appropriate
translation since the psychological connotation of insincerity or hypocrisy is not used by pre-
Christian users.
90
The maxim in Prov 27:5 is: open rebukes (are) better than disguised love. Among the pre-Socratic
philosophers, the maxims are: many who seem to be friends are not, and many who do not seem to be
210

used by Paul). In 2 Cor 6:6, Paul used the same word oyoq ovuo|pio (with
genuine love), in contrast to the false apostles who used their gifts for the sake of
power and status. Why does Paul use genuine love? It is likely that he wishes the
love to be genuine because of his struggles with the opponents (2 Cor 6:6).
91
To
remain genuine in love requires a disciplined commitment to honesty and respect
to limits, as the rest of the passage will demonstrate.
92

Paul urges on the Romans that genuine love hates (oooouyouvt) what
is evil and holds fast (|oiiotvoi) to what is good (9b-c). Although the
connection between 9a, 9b and 9c is debated recently, denying its logical
connection, it is possible that there is a link between them on substantive and
grammatical grounds.
93
As Morris notes, True love involves a deep hatred for all
that is evil, for evil can never benefit the beloved.
94
Love not only hates evil but
also has a strong affinity for what is good, so that they seek it fervently and cling to
it no matter what the cost.
95
The genuineness of love can be tested with evil actions
because sincere love is always committed to the good of others (cf. Rom 12:21;
overcoming evil with good).
5.3.2. Brotherly Affection (iiotiio 12:10a)
Paul continues to emphasize love as mutual responsibility in v.10a; love one
another with brotherly affection. Genuine love is necessary for practising
iiotiio. In 1 Thess 4:10, Paul used this term in a sense of emotional and

are; it is difficult for an enemy to deceive his foe, Cyrnus, but easy for friend to deceive friend. See
Gnomologium Democrateum 97; Theognis Eleg. 1219-20. See also Jewett, Romans, 759.
91
See Georgi, Opponents, 258-64, 315-19. The point here is people can pretend to be nice and kind
but without genuine love. See Schreiner, Romans, 663.
92
Jewett, Romans, 759. See also Jewett, Christian Tolerance, 92-120.
93
oooouyou vt (abhor, KJV) is a strong word for hatred; commentators suggest that oo - gives
emphasis to the verb. |oiio tvoi refers to the marriage relationship elsewhere (1 Cor 6:16, 17; cf.
Matt 19:5). Barrett argues that the participles (oooouyou vt, |oiiotvoi) are imperatival; by
contrast Fitzmyer suggests they are not imperatival. See Barrett, Romans, 221; Fitzmyer, Romans,
653. Cleaving to good is elaborated in vv.10-16 and abhorring evil in vv.17-21.
94
Morris, Romans, 444.
95
211

material sharing. Brotherly love appears to be a uniquely developed notion among
Christians. This idea is so strong among the Christians that they consider it as if they
are members of a natural family and are bound by love in a special sense.
96
Paul
focuses its importance on interpersonal actions and attitudes in Romans.
Verse 10 can be considered as a pair of admonitions which are related to one
another. The two parts of v.10 form a structured parallelism and can be interpreted
on the basis of each other.
97
Paul moves from the individual focus to the
congregational focus, which is evident in the word ti oiiqiou (one another).
Aasgaard observes that Paul is using brotherly love in general and that the mutual
obligation among Christians is expressed without bias.
98

It is also striking that iiotiio is used with iiooopyoi; both terms
have a iio stem. This term iiooopyoi occurs only once in Paul and in the
whole of the New Testament. Paul brings forth the family affection (iiooopyoi),
which denotes warm and familial love as the term iiotiio denotes brotherly
love and sisterly love.
99
Paul here compares church to a family that is as close as a

96
The idea of brotherly love is common among the Jews, (which Christians took over) and it is also
common among Essenes (it is used for fellow countrymen, members of the religious society, and for
friends; see H. F.von Soden, iiotiio, TDNT 1, 146). The sense of one family united in love with
God as the Father is significant among the Christians, as this sense of familial relationship existed
only among the members of the natural family. Morris, Romans, 444. See also Moo, Romans, 777;
Schreiner, Romans, 664; Dunn, Jewett, Cranfield, Barrett also agree with this view.
97
Aasgaard regards the second part of the verse to be interpreted as the explanation of the first part
and that the two verse halves form a synthetic parallelism. Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and
Sisters, 171.
98
Irrespective of groups or persons, love should be given to all. The repetition of oiiqiou: ti
oiiqiou (v.10a) and oiiq iou (v.10b) strongly highlights the aspect of mutuality; ti oiiqiou
is significant since it possibly focuses on brotherly love as an internal obligation. See Aasgaard, My
Beloved Brothers and Sisters, 172. Aasgaard also suggests that the element of reciprocity is more
evident in Romans than 1 Thessalonians possibly because of the internal strife in the Roman church.
99
The Christian identity as otio and otiq designates the familial language which has its
influence in the early Christian communities to show their relationship as that of siblings; this implies
role ethics that determines the pattern of behaviour. See Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 113.
Aasgaard highlights the emotional element evident in iiooopyoi, as ii- is repeated, where Paul
emphasizes that our attitudes should be affectionate. See Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers and Sisters,
173.
212

natural family. All members of the church are united in Christ as brothers and
sisters.
5.3.3. Honouring One Another (q iq oiiqiou poqyoutvoi 12:10b)
The interpretation of q iq oiiqiou poqyoutvoi has divided
scholars into two groups: one group has come up with a meaning to lead the way or
be the first in conferring honour on others
100
and the other group interprets on the
basis of Phil 2:3 - in humility preferring others as more excellent than
yourselves.
101
I suggest that the more viable translation of v.10b (q iq
oiiqiou poqyoutvoi) is taking the lead in honouring one another.
102
The two
exhortations in v.10 are related to each other. The prefix po signifies or
intensifies the verb qytooi (lead).
103
This verse can be understood best in the
context of social honour in the Mediterranean world, where public recognition was

100
Those who agree with this view are Dunn (741); Fitzmyer (654); Stuhlmacher (195); Moo (777-
778), NRSV, RSV.
101
The difference between the two views is narrow since the verbal root qytiooi is used. Those who
agree with the second option are J. Calvin, Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans, J.
Owen (trans.) (Vol. XIX; Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1993), 465; Sanday and Headlam, Romans,
361; Barrett, Romans, 221; Ksemann, Romans, 346; Schreiner, Romans, 664. Wilckens, Rmer, 3:20;
Cranfield, Romans, 2:632, 633; KJV, NIV.
102
Jewett, Romans, 761. 1iq is used elsewhere in Romans (2:7; 9:21; 13:7). The related terms are
glory oo (2:7; 3:7; 4:20; 5:2; 8:18, 21; 11:36), dishonour oiio (1:26; 9:21), boast
|ou_qo/|ou_qoi (3:27; 4:2; 15:17). See also J. Schneider, iq |i., TDNT 8 ( 1972) 169-80.
In an article entitled The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences between Paul
and Stoicism, T. Engberg-Pedersen notes there are two types of honour in Stoicism; iq and oo.
iq is to be given to others oo is one that gets for ones own. He argues that Pauls argument
of other-regardingness is completely one-sided: forgetting completely about oneself, thinking
instead and only of the others and Paul missed out the other aspect of Stoicism: the wise man ... also
remains an individual bodily being. It is purposefully omitted by Paul that Paul wished to make his
image of the fully committed Christ-believer as radically one-sided as at all possible (Arius, SVF III,
112). T. Engberg-Pedersen, The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences between Paul
and Stoicism ZNW 96 (2005), 35-60, at 56, 57. See also T. Engberg-Pedersen, Paul and the Stoics
(Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000).
It is obvious in Pauline letters that he emphasizes a believers commitment to Christ to keep its
balance in relationship to others and the individualistic aspect is given less importance, probably for
two reasons: he wants to conquer the natural tendency to get honour for oneself (Rom 12:3); and that
the nature of Christ is to be manifested in every believer (Phil 2:5; cf. Gal 2:20). As P. H. Esler notes,
Pauls paramount concern with the nature of face-to-face contacts between Christ-followers, who
treat one another with oyoq and put the interest of others ahead of their own, is so radically
different from anything in the stoic thought that he brings into sharp focus his distinctive vision of
moral life in Christ. P. H. Esler, Paul and Stoicism: Romans 12 as a Test Case NTS 50 (2004), 106-
124, at 124.
103
See BDAG, 864; LSJ 1480. It is a compound verb and it is used only once in the New Testament;
take the lead in honouring or be a leader in honouring.
213

the mark of personal identity.
104
Moxnes notes that in antiquity honour was
displayed in due balance among those of the same honour and thus there was a
balanced mutuality.
105
But in Paul the standard of honour reverses or even
transcends the given order: others are to be honoured higher than oneself. It is
important to note the Hebraic idiom mentioned by Michel, the virtue of taking the
lead in greeting others.
106
Here it has some effect on the congregational situation in
Rome, as there is lack of acceptance in their love feasts (see below in chapter 6 on
Romans 14, 15). Paul mentions this strategy of honouring others in v.3 not to think
of yourself more highly than you ought to think and more explicitly in v.16
associate with the lowly (oi otivoi, which refers to what lacks honour).
The re-evaluation of ones values is to take place in the form of honouring
others higher than oneself. If each one takes the lead, then there will be sharing of
honour. It would be a good opportunity to demonstrate genuine love, as the
competition for honour is transformed in a way to give honour to others. Moxnes
comments, In the transformation of values, Paul claims that honour is now freely to
be granted on the basis of love, regardless of status and merit.
107
It implies that the

104
See B. J. Malina, The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology. (Louisville:
John Knox Press, 2001), 25-50; R. Jewett, Honour and Shame in the Argument of Romans, in A.
Brown, G. F. Snyder, and V. Wiles (eds.), Putting Body and Soul Together: Essays in Honour of
Robin Scroggs (Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997), 257-72. See also H. Moxnes,
Honour and Righteousness JSNT 32 (1988), 61-77, at 73-74.
105
H. Moxnes, The Quest for Honour and the Unity of the Community in Romans 12 and in the
Orations of Dio Chrysostom in T. Engberg-Pederson (ed.), Paul in His Hellenistic Context
(Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994), 203-30 at 211-13, 220-23. See also Moxnes, Honour and
Righteousness, 74.
106
O. Michel, Der Brief an die Rmer (KEK, 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1978), 384. In
P. Abot 4:15 Rabbi Eleazar ben Shammua said: Let the honour of your disciple be dear to you as the
honour of your associate, and the honour of your associate as the fear of your teacher, and the honour
of your teacher as the fear of heaven. In Abot 4:20 the second century rabbi Mattia ben Harasch
taught, Be first in greeting every man. Jewett, Romans, 762, fn. 39.
107
Moxnes, Honour and Righteousness, 74-75. Moxnes observes that Paul relates the internal
relations and behaviours of the community to the question of honour and recognition, since Paul
instructs them to outdo in honouring one another (12:10), and that honour is not to be awarded on
merits and status but only on the basis of brotherly love. The system of society to honour those of
higher status is reversed in Paul and those of lower status should be the recipients of honour, from
those of the same level or even more by the honourable group. He also notes that Pauls argument is
214

standards are to be changed, and the tables turned upside down
108
and that the
interests of Christian siblings are to be honoured by renouncing ones own.
5.3.4. Generosity and Hospitality (12:13)
Genuine love has its expression in sharing (|oivovouvt) rather than merely
contributing (toouvt; 12:8). The verb |oivovouvt in Pauls letters (Rom
15:26, 27; 2 Cor 8:4; 9:13; Gal 6:6; Phil 1:5; 4:15; cf. 1 Tim 6:18; Heb 13:16; cf.
Acts 2:44; 4:32; 1 Tim 6:18; Heb 13:16) carries a sense of making financial
contributions and sharing other resources. It is unlikely that Paul has the idea of the
Jerusalem collection
109
, since the Romans were not asked to contribute to the
project; rather he possibly reminds the believers of the marks of the Christian life as
sharing in the needs
110
of the saints (all believers). As Schreiner notes, Paul
certainly believed that all those in financial distress should be provided with help,
but he assigned priority to those in the believing community (Gal 6:10), in the same
way that one should financially assist family members before giving to others (1
Tim 5:4, 8).
111

similar to that used in chs. 3-4. Behaviour among Christians should reflect Gods free granting of
honour. It implies re-evaluation of values for the benefit of others.
108
Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers, 173, 4. Aasgaard disagrees with Moxnes that the honour codes of
Paul work in the framework of the honour shame system of the city. Rather he notes that the language
of the Christian relations employed by Paul is from the context of the family and siblingship. See
Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers, 175.
109
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 743; Cf. T. Zahn, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer (Kommentar zum
Neuen Testament 6. Leipzig: Deichert, 1910). This view is opposed by Cranfield.
110
There is a textual problem whether _ptioi or vtioi is used (needs or remembrances). Most
scholars reject the term remembrances but accept needs. The evidence for vtio (D*F G) is not
negligible, but _ptio fits the context better, and vtio is not used in plural in the New Testament.
The notion of remembering the saints as outstanding Christians is not convincing; rather it is more
likely to mean to help those who are needy by being one with them. The early church was deeply
concerned about the poor, whose situation was desperate. See L. Morris, The Epistle to the Romans
(Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988), 448; the same view is accepted by other scholars like Moo,
Cranfield, Barrett and Jewett. Ksemann notes that assistance is to be given to widows, orphans,
prisoners, and the needy (see Ksemann, Romans, 346) which gives a picture of those who are at a
particular social level of the society. I would rather suggest needy does not denote a particular social
group as such but it could be an inclusive term to denote people who are in different needs.
111
215

Paul links the practice of hospitality with the quality of sharing to take a lead
in meeting requirements (v.10b). The use of the participle io|ovt indicates the
initiative in helping with hospitality; that hospitality could be understood as another
form of sharing resources, i.e. by opening ones own house for a guest or stranger in
order that he/she feels comfortable, that includes not only giving accommodation but
also sharing meals.
112
It is widely agreed that the term iiotvio can be translated
as hospitality. As Morris suggests, Paul is not advocating a pleasant social
exercise among friends, but the use of ones home to help even people we do not
know, if that will advance Gods cause.
113
However, Paul has in mind that
hospitality should be practised not only with regard to evangelistic purposes but also
as an obligation for the well being of the community as a body. Christian life has its
fruits in communal sharing, caring and supporting.
The practical value of preferring one another will take its form in hospitality
and support offered to travelling leaders (Rom 12:13; 15:24; 16:2, 23; cf. 1 Cor
16:6, 11: Phlm 22),
114
which implies their universal significance. A local church is a
prototype of the larger family or the body in its broader context. It is not a body of
Christ but the body of Christ (1 Cor 12:27).
115

112
Ancient society highly regarded the virtue of providing hospitality to strangers; the people of Israel
were sojourners in Egypt (Lev 19:34; Deut 10:19), Abraham was a model of hospitality (Gen 18);
likewise, hospitality was a key feature of Jesus ministry (Mk 1:29-31; 14:3; Lk 10:38-42) as well as
the early missions (Acts 16:15; 18:3). Dunn, Romans 9-16, 743, 744. See for more discussion J.
Koenig, New Testament Hospitality: Partnership with Strangers as Promise and Mission
(Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985), 61-65. The idea of hospitality resonates in Pauls admonition to
welcome one another (Rom 14, 15), in greetings (Rom 16:2-16) and Phoebes welcome as she needs
to be welcomed as is worthy of the saints (Rom 16:1, 2).
113
Morris, Romans, 448. The missionaries lack money to pay for lodging, so the need of hospitality
was urgent in Pauls days and their travel depended on hospitality; cf. Heb 13:2; 1 Pet 4:9; 1 Clem 1.2;
10.7; 11.1; 12.1; Herm Man 38.10.
114
Meggitt, Paul, Poverty, and Survival, 163.
115
Banks, Pauls Idea of Community, 63.
216

5.3.5. Identifying Love (12:15)
Relations in the community
116
are very well expressed as Paul admonishes the
believers to be one with those who rejoice and with those who weep (v.15). The
infinitives _oiptiv (to rejoice), |ioitiv (to weep) are used in an imperative sense.
Rejoicing with those who are rejoicing and weeping with those who are weeping are
real expressions of love in the Christian community.
117
This is total identification, or
in other words, being one with others, i.e. being members of one another (12:5). It is
more difficult to rejoice with others than weep with those who suffer. Chrysostom
notes that the admonition to rejoice comes first because it is difficult to put into
practice,
118
since envy could prevent its genuineness. Here Paul wants the believers
not only to be indifferent to the happiness and sorrowfulness of others but also to
share with them.
5.3.6. Harmonious Living (Rom 12:16)
Paul states that the believers should live in harmony with one another (o
ouo ti oiiqiou povouvt) v.16a cf. 1 Cor 12:25 (o ouo ut p
oiiqiov).
119
Ksemann suggests the community is to be of one mind.
120
The
different translations can be live in harmony with one another (NIV); thinking the
same to one another (literally in Greek). As Moo rightly suggests,

116
Cranfield thinks that those outside the church are not in view. By contrast Dunn suggests here the
community suggests a wider perspective including those outside the church. See Cranfield, Romans,
2:674f; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 756.
117
Schreiner, Romans, 668. I disagree with Morris as he uses the term sympathy to denote the sense
of feeling to others (v. 15), since I suggest identifying is more meaningful here in relation to the
body metaphor. Morris, Romans, 449; cf. Barrett, Romans, 222.
118
Chrysostom, Homilies on Romans, 7.
119
The use of the proposition ti is notable in this verse, since it is not used with the phrase (o ouo
oiiqiou) elsewhere in the Pauline epistles (Rom 15:5: tv oiiqioi is used after o ouo
povtiv). Calvin, Wilckens (Der Brief an die Rmer, 3. EKKNT, 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener
Verlag, 1978-82), Moo, Dunn and Jewett regard this verse as talking about the relationship of
Christians with one another and not to the outsiders; contra Cranfield, Leenhardt. It could be assumed
that the same attitude among the Christians could also be presented toward all other people
irrespective of their status; TEV: the same concern for everyone. Moo, Romans, 783.
120
217

The one-another language of v. 15 picks up the same theme from v. 10,
while the use of the root pov- (think) in all three admonitions in this
verse reminds us of Pauls demand for the right kind of thinking among
Christians in v.3 He is calling us to a common mind-set. Such a
common mind-set does not mean that we must all think in just the same
way or that we must think exactly the same thing about every issue, but
what we should adopt an attitude toward everything that touches our lives
that springs from the renewed mind of the new realm to which we belong
by Gods grace (see v. 2).
121

The phrase implies that the whole community has the same goal to be of the
same mind and in achieving it they strive together, which perhaps concerns a
common attitude of humility to one another. This has a lot to do with respect and
honour that works in both directions as the preposition ti with oiiqiou (towards
one another) signifies.
The other mark of a Christian noted in v.16 b is not to think highly about
oneself, q o uqio povouvt (cf. v.3 to avoid super mindedness).
122
The
biggest obstacle to unity is pride (Phil 2:2-4) and that can be overcome by
associating with the lowly (oi otivoi ouvooyotvoi). otivoi refers
to lowly people, the outcasts, the poor and the needy.
123
Here it means that
haughtiness hinders ones relationship with one another, especially to those in lower
status. Therefore Paul is very keen to admonish that a believer should associate with
all irrespective of their position and status.
The final exhortation in v.16 is not to be wise in ones own thinking (q
yivtot povioi op touoi). It is striking that Paul uses the pov- root

121
Moo, Romans, 782.
122
The Greek neuter plural uqio could mean high positions. However, here the phrase o uqio
povou vt hardly refers to high positions rather the same meaning of uqio povti in Rom 11:20.
This view is accepted by Cranfield, Dunn, Fitzmyer, Moo and Jewett.
123
Moo, Romans, 783. otivoi is regarded as masculine by Godet, Cranfield, Ksemann, Fitzmyer,
Schreiner, Jewett. Contra Sanday and Headlam, Murray, Michel, Schlier who think that otivoi is
neuter in connection with neuter o uqio; TEV accept humble duties. Morris, Barrett, Dunn
accept both neuter and masculine options.
The Greek verb ouvooyo (used with the dative) has no instrumental meaning in Rom 12:16
rather an associative sense of meaning, while it has instrumental meaning in two other New
Testament occurrences (Gal 2:13; 2 Pet 3:17 cf. Exod 14:6). See LSJ, BDAG, Moo, ad loc. Romans,
784.
218

(thinking)
124
and the person who is povio is characterized by thinking and is
therefore wise it becomes negative only when the standard by which we judge
our wisdom is our own.
125

Mutual relations are hindered by pride, and haughtiness springs from high
personal esteem. Paul urges on the Romans to avoid the dangers of it by associating
with the lowly, which creates a mental equality that might allow people to work
with each other.
126

5.3.7. Obligatory Love (13:8, 9, 10)
In Romans 13:8, 9, 10, the noun and the verb forms from the oyoroot are
used 5 times altogether; oyoq (13:10a, b) and oyoov, oyoov, oyoqoti
are used in 13:8a, b; 9. It is used with oiiqiou (v.8a), ov ttpov (v.8b),
iqoiov (v.9, 10) showing the sphere in which love needs to be demonstrated. Does
it include all people or only fellow believers? oiiqiou seems to have the meaning
of fellow believers (v.8); however, it is doubtful whether Paul puts a boundary to
love them alone, since here it seems that he is widening the circle to the other and
neighbour as well. Morris regards the other as having the sense any other person
with whom I have to do.
127
In 13:8-10, the object of love is primarily fellow
believers, although non-believers are not excluded.
128

Paul reminds the believers not to owe (otiitt) anything to others except to
love one another (v. 8). The theme of obligation starts in v.7, where Paul asks the

124
Rom 12:16 uses povou vt two times and the noun povioi once. These terms are used by
Paul to caution against haughtiness: Rom 11:20, 25; 12:3; 15:5; 1 Cor 13:11; Phil 2:2, 5; 4:2.
125
Moo, Romans, 784. Wise in a positive sense is used in Matt 7:24; 10:16; 24:45; 25:2, 4, 8-9; Luke
12:42; 16:8; 1 Cor 4:10; 10:15; 2 Cor 11:19.
126
Jewett, Romans, 770
127
Morris, Romans, 468. Contra Jewett, who suggests that neighbour denotes a Christian neighbour
of any cultural background, who is a member of house church or tenement church whereas the other
belongs to another congregation. Jewett, Romans, 813.
128
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 781. Murray, Cranfield and Fitzmyer agree that the neighbour cannot be
confined to a believer. See Murray, Romans, 160, Cranfield, Romans, 2:675; Fitzmyer, Romans, 678-
79.
219

believers to render to all what is owed (taxes, customs, respect and honour). Paul
urges them to clear off all debts so that believers can give over themselves to love
one another.
129
As Dunn suggests, this means not merely an obligation but a
responsive obligation, an obligation which arises from what those addressed have
received (from God).
130

The obligation of love towards one another fulfils the law; the one who
loves the other, has fulfilled the law (v.8b cf. Gal 5:14).
131
Paul has in mind not the
theology of love or love that fulfils the divine intent, but love as practised among the
members,
132
emphasising the relevance of genuine love in the community of
believers (12:9f).
Loving ones neighbour as oneself sums up (ovo|toioiouoi)
133
all the
commandments (v.9). Love is the essence of the Christian life and all laws and
commands should be done out of love, avoiding the danger of legalism.
134
The
Pauline ethic focuses on love as its centre, and not merely on outward expressions.
Love does no evil to the neighbour (13:10a) echoes Pauls previous exhortation to
overcome evil with good (12:21 cf. Ps 15:3) and that love is the fulfilment of the
law (v. 10), i.e. by loving, one puts the law into practice. This does not mean that
love is the full content of law; rather Paul considers that love and law are

129
Aiiqiou oyoov (to love one another) has parallels in Greek, Jewish, and Apocalyptic
literature (T. Zeb 8:5; T. Sim 4.7; CD 6:20-21). In v.8 one another refers to fellow believers as
suggested by Zahn (562), Lietzmann (112), Lagrange (315), (Lagrange, M. -J. Saint Paul: ptre aux
Romains. tudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda, 1931), Wilckens (3:68), Jewett (806). Contra Dunn (776),
who suggests all with whom the Roman Christians would come in contact; see also Fitzmyer (678).
130
131
Jewett, Romans, 808. V.8b poses a translation problem as it translates: the one who loves the
other or one who loves, fulfils the other law. The other law translation alludes to the Mosaic
covenant, after the Roman law in 13:1-7, and some others assume it as the Jewish Torah (Cranfield
(2:675), Michel (409), Wilckens, 3:68, Dunn, 2:776-777). Paul uses law in a generic sense and
iqpoo has a sense to do and perform or to accomplish its original intent and purpose; see
Jewett, Romans, 808, 809.
132
133
ovo|toioioo is rarely used in secular Greek and other literary sources and only once used
elsewhere in the New Testament (Eph 1:10).
134
220

compatible in a wider way as they belong together.
135
Thus Pauls admonition to
love one another raises a strong awareness of mutual responsibility, as Jewett
suggests, the command to love aims at mutuality, with each aiming to meet the
needs of others as well as oneself.
136

5.4. The Pauline Emphases
As stated in the introduction, Paul urges the Romans to practise their conduct
in a Christian perspective. As one body in Christ, each ones behaviour affects the
total behaviour of the community; each believer is interrelated to his/her fellow
believers in Christ. The unity contributes to mutual interdependence and mutual
interdependence contributes to unity, implying genuine love and harmony. This
model of relationships in the community works with the help of the grace
apportioned to each one in Christ, which helps to serve one another as serving the
Lord (Rom 12:11) and having the same mind of Jesus (Phil 2:5).
Paul alters the hierarchical model towards that of equalization, where no one
is permanently in a superior or inferior position as each one is promoting the other
by the reversal of positions: one takes the position of the other. Thus, there is a
process of reciprocal relationships, a repeated process of change in position. As
Alain Badiou suggests, this may be the reversibility of an inegalitarian rule such
that there is a subsequent symmetrisation.
137

Paul urges believers not to become proud but to stand in awe (Rom 11:20)
which could be interpreted in terms of mutuality of honour; i.e., constantly sharing
honour, which is paradoxical as there was a competition for honour in the ancient

135
Schreiner, Romans, 693. Love as the fulfilment of the law shows the performance or the
pragmatic significance of the law and not in a sense of completion; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 780, 781; see
also Stuhlmacher, Romans, 210.
136
137
A. Badiou, Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism (Stanford: Stanford University Press,
2003), 104. The rule looks and is inegalitarian, but it can be and is reversed, so that what is unequal in
one direction is made equal in another, resulting in a process of symmetry (what he calls
symmetrisation).
221

world (the notion of superiority). If anyone is honoured, then the other person is
jealous of him and wants to achieve more honour than him. It is difficult to be first
in honouring (poqyoutvoi- to take lead, Rom 12:10b); rather it is easier and more
comfortable to be honoured than to honour others. To be a leader and at the same
time to honour others calls forth an interchange in status. Nonetheless, here Paul
urges believers not to wait for a second chance but to take the first chance to honour
others. Jesus took the form of a slave (Phil 2) and he became poor to make us rich (2
Cor 8:9). Taking the place of others in order to honour them is the most significant
expression of love the world has ever seen. Christ took the place of sinners and died
on the cross for their sins. Christ has become a model par excellence in honouring
others irrespective of their lower status or position (Rom 15:1, 2). Genuine love
helps to maintain relationships to one another in the Christian community.
138
In 1
Corinthians it is the greater gift (12:31), while in Romans it is the fulfilment of the
law (13:10). The body cannot function properly without the exercise of love; love
that circulates all over the limbs and organs helps the body to act in mutuality, to
keep intact and to avoid division.
The hierarchical ordering of gifts in 1 Corinthians is subverted by the different
gifts according to the grace given by serving the least (Rom 12:3-8; 9f). Another
significant development of interdependence is the more clear cut expression of being
members of one another (o t |o ti oiiqiov tiq Rom 12:5 cf. tiq t|
tpou 1 Cor 12:27). Reciprocal relations are emphatically expressed in Romans by
the repeated usage of oiiqiou/oiiqiov; self sufficiency through ignoring others
is unwarranted.

138
Christian life is the practical expression of ones relationship to Christ, reflecting Christs present
sovereign dominion in the life of a Christian, implying solidarity, affection and mutuality between
the people of the community. Fitzmyer, Paul and His Theology, 90.
222

Paul calls forth an attitude of sober mindedness which indeed creates other
mindedness, being the body in Christ and members of one another, thus the
members of the one body (in Christ). Harmony in the community can be
maintained by overcoming evil with good (vv.17-21). Paul applies the Christian
value of forgiveness that not only forgives others but also rewards with good. He
redefines positive reciprocity as not only repaying good for good but also
overcoming evil with good, having a triumph over it. As a matter of fact, this type of
nature is difficult to practise without the grace of Christ.
5.5. Conclusion
Paul develops his ethic of mutuality from the fundamental idea of mutual
interdependence in body politics to the body in Christ, where relationship is based
on genuine love towards one another. It points to the being in Christ, the belonging
togetherness of the Christian community that holds together people of different
status, gender and ethnic origin around one axis. As Barclay suggests in the context
of Paul and multiculturalism,
The foundation of Pauls gospel and the basis of its relativization of all
cultures, is his radical appreciation of the grace of God which humbles
human pride and subverts the theological and cultural edifices which
flesh constructs The church exists not for its own sake but to bear
witness to the grace of God.
139

The Christian experience is an apparent expression of the grace of God
received. It is not only an individual experience but has social and ethical aspects
which are derived from incorporation into the body of Christ. The grace we receive
from God is not something to be kept as ones own possession but something to be
passed on to others.

139
J. M.G. Barclay, Neither Jew Nor Greek: Multiculturalism and The New Perspective on Paul, in
Ethnicity and the Bible, ed. by M. G. Brett (Leiden: Brill, 1996), 197-214, at 213.
223

The ideals of the kingdom of God such as justice, peace, joy and fellowship
indeed uphold the theological significance of mutuality as they involve the
relationship to one another (cf. Romans 14:17). The ethical implications of the
Christian life are further explicated in Romans 14, 15. How should we evaluate one
another? This is the focus of discussion in the following chapter.

224

Chapter 6
Receiving One Another: A Paradigm of Mutuality in Rom 14, 15
6.1. Introduction
In the preceding chapter the discussion was focussed on the exhortations of
Paul on mutual interdependence and its implications for the practical Christian life of
a believer in individual and communal dimensions through the metaphorical
description of the body and its members (Rom 12, 13; cf. 1 Cor 12, 13). The present
chapter discusses Pauls admonition to the Roman community about the particular
circumstances in which mutual respect and acceptance need to be practised.
However, over decades debate has been going on concerning whether Romans 14, 15
is addressed to any particular situation in the Roman community, since it has some
similar arguments to that of 1 Corinthians 8-10. Some scholars argue that it is a
generalised exhortation, while others consider it a reaction to the actual situation in
the Roman community. I presume the latter opinion, since the theme of mutuality fits
well within the context and these chapters (14, 15) speak about the contextual
application of his exhortations given in the previous chapters (12, 13). Welcome or
receive is a repeated catchword, which we seldom find in 1 Corinthians.
Romans 14:1-15:13 urges on the Romans the need for unity and reinforces
mutual relations and acceptance. Mutual relations can be seen as a significant aspect
in Romans, which appears here as welcoming others. It seems that differences and
diversity in a persons cultural practice may hinder welcoming. That may be the
reason why Paul strongly urges Roman Christians to bear one another irrespective of
position or status. Romans 14 and 15 seem to be a continuation of the exhortations in
chapters 12 and 13 and stand in a way as a crucial link to the long list of greetings in
Romans 16.
225

The paradigm of mutuality is obvious in Romans 14 and 15; this section starts
with an exhortation to receive one another (14:1) and reaches its climax in receive
one another as Christ has welcomed us (15:7). The present chapter discusses Pauls
rhetorical strategy to bring forth mutuality. It is argued that Rom 14, 15 fits in the
whole context of the Romans and that it has a specific concrete message to convey in
order to enhance mutual love and edification among the believers in Rome. Also, I
attempt to discuss to a limited extent how far the Pauline idea of mutuality is
different from that of the then existing system of reciprocity. This chapter has three
parts: the first part analyses the social context, the second contains an exegetical
analysis of the issue of mutual welcome, while the third deals with the Pauline ethos
of mutuality.
6.2. The Social Context: The Weak/Strong Dichotomy
In this section, the social context of the passage is studied by identifying the
strong and the weak in the Roman context by analysing different interpretations of
these groups. The similarities and dissimilarities between Rom 14, 15 and 1 Cor 8-10
are also studied to a limited extent in order to verify the particular occasion and to
demonstrate how these chapters fit in the whole context of the letter.
6.2.1. Issues in Group Conflicts
Paul mentions two subgroups, as he refers to the weak in faith (ootvouvo
q ioti; 14:1; 15:1) and the strong (oi uvooi; 15:1), who seem to be divided
on issues of food, wine and days.
The issues in consideration are two or perhaps three:
1

1. The strong eat all kinds of food while the weak eat only vegetables (14:2);

1
Moo, Romans, 827. Moo considers the third point also possibly be an issue of division among the
Roman Christians although Paul refers to it as an example and not as a precise issue among Roman
Christians. It would support the thesis that Jewish observance is the main matter of conflict. See.
Barclay, Do we undermine the Law?, 289.
226

2. The strong make no distinction among days while the weak value some
days more than others (14:5);
3. The strong drink wine while the weak abstain (14:21; cf. 14:17).
The overall purpose of Pauls admonition can be seen as the unity of the
church. Paul aims to unite the two groups who are divided in their opinion about the
eating of meat, the observance of days, and the drinking of wine (14: 2, 5, 21).
The first matter of dispute is: one person eats all things, while another eats only
vegetables (i.e. not meat). The weak in faith probably avoid meat out of their respect
for the Jewish Law in a pagan context, due to the unavailability of kosher meat.
2

Another point of disagreement between the strong and the weak is on the matter of
days. Here it is implied that the weak believer judges the days as preferring one day
to another, while the strong believer considers each day to be the same. It is not
certain whether the pagan environment of lucky or unlucky days or Jewish
observance of days is in the mind of Paul. However, it is more likely that Paul is here
dealing with issues related to the Jewish law; the observance or non-observance of
the law is the key issue. As Barclay suggests, these verses refer to Jewish scruples
(which could be held by Jews or Gentiles) concerning the consumption of meat
considered unclean and the observance of the Sabbath and the Jewish feasts or fasts;

2
There are some scholars who disagree that Jewish Law is the subject of dispute. E.g. Reasoner thinks
that vegetarianism is the issue between the groups. See Reasoner, The Strong, 103f; See also J. P.
Sampley, The Weak and the Strong: Pauls Careful and Crafty Rhetorical Strategy in Romans 14:1-
15:3, in L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough, The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in
Honour of Wayne A. Meeks (Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995), 40-52 at 41, 42. Kosher laws required the
blood to be properly drained from the animal (Lev 3:17; 7:26-27; 17:10-14; Deut 12:16, 23-24 cf.
Acts 15:20, 29). One matter of consideration is the Claudius expulsion of Jews in 49 CE, which might
have caused the fear of availability of food not tainted with idolatry. Josephus speaks of the Jewish
priests imprisoned in Rome as they had not forgotten the pious practices of religion and supported
themselves on figs and nuts. Josephus, Life 14. See Dunn, Romans 9-16, 801. Also, Watson thinks
that Jewish Christians were not probably welcomed in the Jewish shops. F. Watson, Paul, Judaism
and the Gentiles: A Sociological Approach (SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press,
1986), 95. I suggest what is at stake is not the availability or unavailability of kosher meat in Rome,
but conflict on the issue of the food offered in a Christians house, i.e. whether it was pure in the sight
of those observing the Jewish purity laws. See Barclay, Do we undermine the Law?, 291; Cranfield,
Romans, 2:695. W. Schmithals, Der Rmerbrief: Ein Kommentar (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1988), 103-104.
227

the wine, if it is relevant, is also a matter of Jewish concern, relating to its use in
idolatrous worship.
3
The arguments in line with this assumption are the following:
1. The use of the terms |oivo (14:14) and |oopo (14:20) are characteristic
terms of the Jewish purity laws, while |oivo is used in non-Jewish Greek to
mean shared, not common in the sense of impure. Paul explicitly
expresses that for those who consider something impure it is impure for them,
probably referring to the perception of the weak, while expressing his personal
view as that nothing is impure in itself (14:14).
4
The purity laws were
considered to be essential markers to create a specific identity different from
others, which makes it obvious that here Pauls discussion concerns not only
the observance of Torah and the unity of the community but also at stake was
the whole Jewish conception of holiness and whether a clear line of
demarcation must not be drawn between the holy community and those
outside.
5

2. The discussions in the preceding and the following sections of Rom 14:1-15:6
suggest that the issues are related to Jewish practices in relation to law,
election, circumcision, etc. (Rom 2-3, 9-11, 15:7-13).
3. Paul is concerned about the attitude of the Christians as they meet together to
eat and not the general abstinence from meat and wine as the peculiar

3
Barclay, Do we undermine the Law?, 289. The majority of scholars agree that the main issue under
consideration is the Jewish observance of the law. Minear, Obedience of Faith,8-10 ; Cranfield,
Romans, 2:690-98; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer, 3:109-15; Watson, Paul, Judaism and the
Gentiles, 88-96; Wedderburn, The Reasons for Romans, 30-35; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 795-806.
4
Paul affirms and strongly emphasizes this by the words: I know and am convinced in the Lord
Jesus (Dunn thinks this constitutes a triple emphasis - I know; am convinced; in the Lord Jesus;
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 818).
Although |oivo in ordinary Greek means common, ordinary, the sense of ritual purity is well
illustrated in the use of the word in 1 Macc 1:47, 62; Mark 7:2, 5; Acts 10:14 and 11:8, this deep
concern was also a matter of fact in the Judaism of the time as seen in Jud 12:7; Jub 3.8-14; Pss Sol
8.12, 22; IQS 3.5; CD 12.19-20; cf. the Pharisees and Essenes attitude to purity laws. See Dunn,
Romans 9-16, 818-819; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer, 3:109-115.
5
228

characteristics of Judaism. As Barclay rightly argues, the disputes arise when
they do (or do not) welcome one another to meals (14:1-3), and their debates
are given urgency not as general discussions of lifestyle but as specific
arguments about the food set before them on such occasions.
6
They are
sceptical about the food offered in a Christians house, who may not be a strict
observer of the law, whether in the use of prohibited meat, meat from an
animal killed not in the right way or meat related to idol worship (the wine may
also have idolatrous connections; e.g. Daniel and Esther kept themselves away
from pagan meals).
7
The observance of days also relates to the same problem
of commensality. The observance of Sabbath and the days of Jewish feasts
and fasts were the possible issues.
6.2.2. The Groups Identified
The different interpretations regarding the identity of the strong and the weak
are:
8

1. The weak were mainly Gentile Christians who abstained from meat (and
perhaps wine), particularly on certain fast days under the influence of certain
pagan religions.
9

2. The weak were Christians perhaps both Jewish and Gentile, who practised
asceticism.
10

6
7
Daniel 1.8-16; Esther 14.17 (LXX). The problem of commensality is the issue under consideration
- how observant Jews (and perhaps law-observant Gentiles) can participate in a meal hosted by those
who do not scruple to observe the law. Barclay, Do we undermine the Law, 291. See also E. P.
Sanders, Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah (Five Studies, London: SCM Press, 1990), 272-283.
8
For these classifications, I am indebted to Moo, Romans, 828, 829.
9
Ksemann, Romans, 367-68; Lagrange, Saint Paul: ptre aux Romains, 335-40; Reasoner, The
Strong, 103. Orphism or Neo-Pythagoreans avoided anything with a soul. Some later Gnostics also
avoided eating flesh (Irenaeus, AH 1.24.2; Eusebius, H. E. 4.29).
10
Lenski, Interpretation of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans, 812-3; Murray, Romans, 2:172-74; P. J.
Achtemeier, Romans: Interpretation A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching (Atlanta: John
Knox, 1985), 215.
229

3. The weak were mainly Jewish Christians who observed certain practices
derived from the Mosaic Law out of their concern to establish righteousness
before God.
11

4. The weak were mainly Jewish Christians who followed a sectarian
asceticism in expressing their devoutness, due to some syncretistic
tendencies.
12

5. The weak were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from eating meat
sold in the market place thinking that it was polluted by idolatry.
13

6. The weak were mainly Jewish Christians who refrained from certain kinds
of food and observed certain days out of continuing loyalty to the Mosaic
Law.
14

Pauls categorization of the strong and the weak seems to reflect the Roman
usage of the categories that denotes the differences of status, position and power.
15

The strong were a group of believers who have more status, whereas the weak had
low status in the Roman churches. This denotes the difference in their socio-

11
Barrett, Romans, 256-257.
12
H. A. W. Meyer, Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans (J. C. Moore
(trans.); Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876), 2:296-98; Hodge, Romans, 417; P. Althaus, An die Rmer
bersetzt und erklrt (NTD 6; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1966), 138; Black, Romans, 190-
191. Paul confronts syncretistic false teachers in Colossae and Ephesus, which is apparently a mixture
of Judaism and incipient Gnosticism. Colossian heretics advocated abstinence from food, drink and
observance of certain days (Col 2:6, 21), while Ephesians insisted on the avoidance of foods (1 Tim
4:3), which may have influenced Timothy to stop drinking wine (1 Tim 5:23). Jewish sectarian
asceticism can be found in the Therapeutae, who were vegetarians and drank only spring water
(see Philo, The Contemplative Life 37), and some early Jewish Christians like James the brother of the
Lord (cf. Eusebius, H.E. 2.23.5) and Ebionites (Epiphanius, Haer.30.15) abstained from eating flesh.
13
A. Nygren, Commentary on Romans (C. C. Rasmuussen (trans), Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1975),
422; Ziesler, Romans, 323-326.
14
This view has become the most widely accepted. See Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer 3:79, 111-
13; Cranfield, Romans, 2:694-97; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 799-802; A. F. Segal, Paul the Convert: The
Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986, 231-33; P. J.
Tomson, Paul and Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the Gentiles (CRINT, Vol. 1;
Minneapolis: Fortress, 1990), 236-58; Watson, Paul, 94-95; Watson, The Two Roman
Congregations: Romans 14:1-15:13, in Donfried (ed.), The Romans Debate, 203-15; Wedderburn,
Reasons, 31-35; H.-W. Bartsch, Die antisemitischen Gegner des Paulus im Rmerbrief, in Anti
judaismus im Neuen Testament? (ed.) P. W. Eckert, N. P. Levinson, and M. Sthr, Abhandlungen zum
christlich-jdischen (Dialog; Munich: Kaiser, 1967), 33-34.
15
Reasoner, The Strong, 200-220.
230

economic and political status, probably the numerical strength and possibly not their
spiritual superiority.
16
Paul uses the same word strong ou oiioi uvooi (not
many powerful, 1 Cor 1:26) indicating the social status of the believers in Corinth.
Theissen suggests that the powerful denotes the influential people in society.
17

The weakness of the weak connotes the deficit in both theological and social
dimensions.
18
The reference to the weaker members in 1 Cor 12:22 denotes the
social aspect in relation to honour (12:23-26). It indicates inferior status, power and
wealth in comparison with the so-called strong. Epistle to Diognetus (10:5) writes:
For Happiness does not consist of domination over neighbours, nor in wishing to
have more than the weak [i.e., the poor] nor in being wealthy, and having power to
compel those who are below you.
19
Here Paul makes use of the honour and shame
language of the Roman world that denotes the diversity in status, power and position
in socio-economic, political realms to suit his theological purpose of honouring one
another in the Roman churches irrespective of their status.

16
O. Michel, Der Brief an die Rmer (KEK, 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht, 1978), 443;
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 837; H. W. Schmidt, Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer (THKNT, 6; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963), 237. Rom 15:27 suggests that the Gentiles are recipients of the
spiritual blessings from the Jewish Christians.
17
Theissen, Social Setting, 72. Josephus used the same word to refer to the leaders complaining to
Roman authorities about Herods activities: the powerful among the Jews ( Iouoiov oi uvooi).
Josephus, Bell 1.242. The powerful is an expression of social and political prominence. Thucydides,
Hist.1.89.3. See also Jewett, Romans, 876.
18
Josef Zmijewski, ootvq |i. EDNT 1 (1990) 171; Reasoner, The Strong, 218-19. The terms
used by Paul to describe the groups seem to parallel Latin terms such as inferior, tenuis,
invalidus and potens, firmus, validus etc. Seen in the perspective of honour/shame in Roman
society, the weak were people of lower status compared to the strong with higher status. The weak-
strong dichotomy can also be seen in the realms of a persons mental and ethical standards; in the
philosophical schools such as that of the Epicurean Philodemus (110-40/35 BC), which works as an
educational programme to develop the weak students into mature ones to achieve the moral
improvement of groups as well as individuals; other Hellenistic writers also made use of the topos of
the weak and the strong, e.g. Aristides Or. 24.14; Dionysius of Halicarnassus, Ant. Rom. 4.26.1; Ps-
Arist. Mund. 6.396B; Philo Abr. 216; Philo Spec. 2.141; Plutarch Arat. 24.5. See also Aasgaard, My
Beloved Brothers, 180-183.
19
Translation by Jewett, Romans, 877. See 1 Clement 10.2. Job 5:11, 15-16 refers to God as the
powerful saviour for the powerless; the one who (raises) the weak ones to the heights (and) the
powerless one escapes from the hand of the powerful. But there is hope for the powerless ones, but the
mouth of the unjust will be stopped. The term powerful indicates the powerlessness of the opposite
group.
231

For the reasons noted above, it seems that the weak, whom Paul refers to
here, are those who observe the purity laws and observe the Sabbath (who consider
their life style is in honour of the Lord; Rom 14:6), while the strong do not. It is
not accurate to title the two parties Jewish and Gentile Christians as such because
Paul, a Jew, himself claims to be in the group of the strong (Rom 15:1) and there
may be some Gentile Christians who uphold the Jewish laws. Moreover, there is an
indication in the letter itself that Roman Christian communities are ethnically mixed,
consisting of both Jews and Gentiles meeting together (e.g. the persons greeted in
Rom 16).
6.2.3. General or Specific Instruction?
The reason for Pauls inclusion of these issues could be that Paul was aware
of a specific issue of division among the strong and the weak. Several scholars refuse
to accept this explanation on the grounds that:
20

1. Rom 12:1-15:13 is general paraenesis, an outline of the gospel ethic that is
engendered by the gospel itself and not by the needs of a particular community.
2. The impressive number of verbal and conceptual parallels with 1 Cor 8-10
confirms that 14:1-15:13 is like the rest of this section, general paraenesis. Paul
is here giving a generalised version of his advice to the Corinthians about their
disputes over idol meat.
3. The difficulty in pinning down the precise religious motivations for the
practices of the weak suggests that Paul is not describing a specific state of
affairs but an idealized situation.

20
Moo, Romans, 827. These reasons are from R. J. Karris, Romans 14:1-15:13 and the occasion of
Romans, in Romans Debate, 65-84; W. A. Meeks, Judgement and the Brother: Romans 14:1-15:13,
in G. F. Hawthorne with O. Betz (ed.), Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament: Essays in
Honour of E. E. Ellis for his 60th birthday (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987), 290-300; F. Vouga, L
pitre aux Romains comme document ecclsiologique (Rom 12-15) ETR 61 (1986) 489-91; Furnish,
Love Command, 115; Leenhardt, Romans, 344-46.
232

However, it is likely that Paul is addressing the specific issues in the Roman
community and that Romans 12:1-15:13 is not a general paraenesis, and there is
coherence in his arguments.
21
Although the parallels between this passage and 1
Corinthians 8-10 are obvious,
22
there are also obvious differences between the two.
23

E.g., the issue of idolatry is not mentioned in Romans, while it is the main issue in 1
Corinthians.
Table 1. Parallels between 1 Corinthians 8-10 and Romans 14-15
1 Corinthians Romans
a stumbling block to the weak (8:9)
poo|oo oi ootvtoiv

the weak one is destroyed a
brother for whom Christ died (8:11).
a stumbling block or offence to
your brother (14:13)
poo|oo o otio q
o|ovoiov
your brother is grieved do not
destroy that one for whom Christ died

21
The similarities are explained by some scholars on the basis of the problems being of the same
nature (see Cranfield, Romans, 692f; Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer, 3:109-115; W. Schmithals,
Der Rmerbrief. Ein Kommentar (Gtersloh: Mohn, 1988), 494). Aasgaard suggests that Paul is
presenting his arguments parallel to those in Antiquity by using a standard pattern for how to relate to
conflicts of various kinds. Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers, 180.
22
See Table 1. The parallels are found in Karris, Romans 14:1-15:13, 73-75; Wilckens, Der Brief an
die Rmer, 3:115; Cranfield, Romans, 2:692-93; Reasoner, The Strong, 29-39 ; H. J. Klauck,
Herrenmahl und Hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche Untersuchung zum ersten
Korintherbrief (Mnster: Aschendorff, 1982), 281-83.
Aasgaard included the following terminological as well as the thematic similarities between 1
Cor 8:1-11 and Rom 14:1-15:13. They are: a) the disagreement between two groups (Rom 14:1; 15:1;
1 Cor 8:9, 11); b) one group as the strong or free (Rom 15:1; 1 Cor 8:9; 1 Cor 9:1, 3); c) the other
group as weak (Rom 14:1f; 15:1; 1 Cor 8:7, 9-12; cf. also 11:30); d) use of relational terms such as
brother or neighbour (Rom 14:10, 13, 15, 21; 1 Cor 8:11, 12, 13; e) exhortations to shun offending
(Rom 14:13, 20f; 1 Cor 8:9, 13; 10:32; Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:12); f) admonition to avoid doing damage
to another (Rom 14:15; 1 Cor 8:11); g) the expression denoting Christs redemptive action (Rom
14:15; 1 Cor 8:11); h) the metaphor of building up (Rom 14:19, 15:2; 1 Cor 8:1; 10:23 cf. Rom 14:20
destroy a building); i) an idea of not self-pleasing (Rom 15:1f; 1 Cor 10:24, 33). See Aasgaard, My
Beloved Brothers, 178, 179.
23
Meeks, Judgment and the Brother, 291-93; Reasoner, The Strong, 34f., 312-17; B. Witherington,
Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians (Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 187; T. Sding, Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im
Rahmen der paulinischen Ethik (NTAbh, 26: Mnster: Aschendorff, 1995), 229f; Reasoner, The
Strong, 35-37.
233

ooiiuoi o otio i ov
Xpioo otovtv.

therefore if food causes my brother
to stumble, I will never eat meat again,
lest I cause my brother to stumble (8:13)
iotp ti poo o|ovoiiti
ov otiov ou, ou q oyo |pto
ti ov oiovo, ivo q ov otiov
ou o|ovoiioo

Let no one seek their own good
but that of the other be imitators of me
just as I am of Christ (10:24; 11:1)
qti o touou qtio oiio
o ou ttpou iqoi ou yivtot
|oo |oyo Xpioou.
(14:15)
o otio oou iutioi q
t|tivov ooiiut, utp ou Xpioo
otovtv.
it is good not to eat meat or drink
wine or do anything by which your
brother is made to stumble (14:21)
|oiov o q oytiv |pto qt
itiv oivov qt tv o o otio oou
poo|oti

Let each of us please our neighbour
for the good purpose of up-building; for
Christ did not please himself (15:2-3)
t|ooo qov o iqoiov
opto|to ti o oyoov po
oi|ooqv |oi yop o Xpioo ou_
touo qptotv

Karris and others suggest that in Rom 14:1-15:13, Paul generalises the situation
in Corinth.
24
They consider that there was no strife in the Roman community, and
this paraenesis is addressed to a problem that might arise in any community. But
there are others who strongly disagree with this argument and suggest that the

24
Karris thinks that the seven imperatives in the first person plural or third person singular (as
opposed to six in the second person plural) reveal the general nature of the material. See Karris,
Romans 14:1-15:13, 73-77; Meeks, Judgment and the Brother, 292-93.
234

differences reflect the specific situation in Rome.
25
From the personal details of the
people who were the leaders of the Roman congregations in Rom 16, we can infer
that Paul would have known about the situation in Rome, otherwise he would not
have included such detailed exhortations. If it was a general exhortation, he would
not have given such stress by repeating it several times. He would have been in
receipt of the news regarding the situation in Rome through Prisca and Aquila,
Epaenetus, the mother of Rufus, Andronicus and Junia etc.
As Barclay rightly suggests the fact that Paul has omitted some specific issues
in the Corinthian community (reference to tioiouo) and added relevant issues to
the Roman community such as eating of vegetables (Rom 14:2) and the observance
of days (14:5) attests that Paul is offering relevant instruction; the detailed
description of the theme of welcoming each other; the reference to the two groups;
the prominence of the passage at the end of the paraenesis; Pauls siding with the
strong group (15:1); all indicate that Paul knew the circumstances in Rome.
26
Barclay
agrees that the arguments have some degree of generality (14:5, 15, 21) but this
could be explained on rhetorical grounds and the diplomacy of Paul in addressing
the problems in the congregations since he had neither founded nor visited the
Roman church.
27
In line with this argument, Reasoner observes that the strong and
the weak titles might have been common in Rome and Paul would have known about
them.
28
It is difficult to categorize the religious practices of the weak in the passage
but the themes in the chapters imply that Paul is addressing a specific problem in the
Roman community.

25
Wedderburn, Reason for Romans, 30-35.
26
Barclay, Do we undermine the Law?, 289. Horrell suggests that Romans 14-15 is a carefully
constructed and extended piece of argumentation. Horrell, Solidarity and Difference, 167.
27
28
Reasoner, The Strong, 58.
235

This section fits in the context of the whole letter. It has some thematic
parallels with the content as a whole. It has continuity with chaps. 2-13 as it deals
with the behaviours and attitudes that are appropriate in the Christ community, which
Esler calls norms in a social identity sense or more particularly identity
descriptors.
29
The theme of love, which can be seen as the basis of the personal
relationship in 12:9; 13:9-10 is repeated in 14:15 as Paul comments that a person
who does not behave in this way is not walking in accordance with love. As Esler
correctly notes, Paul is presenting the problems highlighted in 14:1-15:13 as a
particular arena for the exercise or non exercise of the oyoq he has just dealt with
at length in chaps. 12-13.
30
The main issue that Paul wants to bring in here is
probably to connect the two groups in order to change the attitudes between them by
their accepting each other.
6.3. Mutual Welcome: Exegetical Analysis of Pauls Exhortations
6.3.1. Welcome (pooioovo)
The core message of Romans 14-15 can be seen in the repeated usage of the
term pooioovtot. It occurs four times: Rom 14:1 (pooioo vtot); 14:3
(pootioto); 15:7 (twice: pooioovtot; pootioto). It is impregnated
with meanings that are significant in the relationships between individuals,
qualifying mutual up-building.
31
The one another relationship not only strengthens
the personal bond but also facilitates the growth of the community. Paul urges his
addressees to exercise the practice of welcoming.

29
Esler, Conflict and Identity, 339.
30
Esler, Conflict and Identity, 340.
31
pooioovo has different meanings: 1) to take something that needs a personal need, take ,
partake of food, Acts 27:34; 2) to promote ones own ends, exploit, take advantage of; 3) to take
or lead off to oneself, take aside, Matt 16: 22; Mk 8:32; Acts 18:26; 3) to extend a welcome, receive
in(to) ones home or circle of acquaintances, Rom 14:1; 15:7a; 14:3; 15:7; Phlm 12; 4) to take or
bring along ...with oneself as companion or helper, Acts 17:5. See BDAG, 883.
236

6.3.1.1. Receive the Weak in Faith (14:1)
Pauls exhortation to receive the weak in faith places the weak as the object
of his exhortation and implies that the strong are the leading members of the Roman
church. To receive means to receive or accept into ones society, home, circle of
acquaintance,
32
which connotes more than mere acceptance into the church
membership, but accepting others as brothers and sisters into the close fellowship of
the people of God.
33
The verb in the present imperative possibly suggests a
continuing attitude of acceptance. Jewett suggests that the home in the early
Christian era may mean the house or tenement church and most likely the love feast,
since this was the format of the assembly that turned the secular space of a house or
portion of a tenement or shop into an arena of sacred welcome; this concrete context
is more helpful for understanding than fuzzy statements of mutual welcome.
34

Who are those weak in faith to be received? The term implies a group or
groups in Rome. The verb ootvto is used for physical illness, social or economic
inferiority, and powerlessness of any kind.
35
The term has a moral connotation in
Epictetus warning: the reason is that usually every power that is acquired by the
uneducated and weak is apt to make then conceited and boastful over it.
36
As noted
above, the Latin adjectives tenuis and infirmis denote a low economic, social, and
political status.
37
In Horaces witty depiction of a man who declares that he is weak
and could not speak on the Sabbath, we find both social and religious inferiority:
Certainly you know more than I do I am a small man of weakness, one of many

32
BDAG, 883; See also Esler, Conflict and Identity, 347.
33
Cranfield, Romans, 2:691. Dunn, Romans 9-16, 798. Barrett, Romans, 236: receive him into the
Christian family.
34
Jewett, Romans, 888. Jewett thinks that most of the commentators have neglected this social
context. Dunn terms this mutual acceptance; Murray as acceptance of believers; Morris as whole
hearted acceptance; Stuhlmacher, accept one another. Some others have regarded the common meal
as the background of this welcome. See Michel, Der Brief an die Rmer, 447; Black, Romans, 200.
35
BDAG 142; G. Sthlin, ootvto |i. TDNT 1 (1964), 490-93.
36
Epictetus, Dissertations 1.8.8-9.
37
237

(sum paulo infirmior, unus multorum). Pardon me, well speak another time.
38

Reasoner suggests this as a parallel to 14:1, since it shows that the person
excessively observant in a foreign religion who matched the weak caricature was
known to Horaces audience.
39
The term implies an ethical-religious weakness in
the New Testament, since strength shows honour and weakness indicates contempt in
the Roman world.
40
The title weak in faith implies the other group is in a more
dominant position, and finds fault with the faith of the inferior group, while being
themselves more powerful (15:1).
41
Paul is here attesting the fact that the faith of
the weak meets the criteria for membership in the church activities and communal
meals.
The word faith is significant in his description of welcome since he uses it to
describe the disputes between the two groups: 14:1, 2 and 14:22, 23. As seen a
number of times in Romans, faith or to believe means a persons response to the
gospel (1:5, 8, 16, 17; 3:22, 25-30; 5:1, 2). It is less probable that Paul is here talking
about a persons weak faith in Jesus as the saviour and the Lord; rather he is
condemning the undesirable implications of their faith in Christ. It does not probably
mean Paul challenges weakness per se, since elsewhere he thinks weakness is the
opportunity for divine grace (2 Cor 4:7-11; 11:30; 12:5, 9-10). As Moo suggests, he
is criticizing them for the lack of insight into some of the implications of their faith
in Christ.
42
Those who cannot accept that faith in Christ is liberation from Old

38
Horace Sat. 1.9.67-72, cited by Reasoner, The Strong, 53-54. See also Jewett, Romans, 834.
39
40
See Reasoner, The Strong, 58-61.
41
Wilckens, Der Brief an die Rmer, 3:81; Ksemann, Romans, 369; T. H. Tobin, Pauls Rhetoric
in its Contexts: The Argument of Romans (Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004), 408, 409.
42
Moo, Romans, 836. Barrett as well as Cranfield think that to be weak in faith means lack of trust
in God (cf. 4:19), which is less likely. Barrett suggests, The weak are weak in faith; they are weak,
but they have faith; they have faith, but they do not draw from it all the inferences that they should
draw. Barrett, Romans, 236; Cranfield, Romans, 2:700. However, Dunn suggests, the weakness is
trust in God plus dietary and festival laws, trust in God dependent on observance of such practices, a
trust in God which leans on the crutches of particular customs and not on God alone, as though they
238

Testament and Jewish regulations are weak in faith compared with those who
worked out the freedom from the same. He wants to lift the weak into the status of
the strong with respect to faith by having the former accepted by the latter. Paul
wants the strong to receive the weak into full and intimate fellowship, something
that could not happen if the strong, the majority group, persist in advancing their
views on these issues, sparking quarrels and mutual recrimination.
43

6.3.1.2. For God has received (14:3)
The attitude to one another could control the freedom of Christians even to
reject any one from the fellowship of Christ. In principle they must receive those
whom God has received. Here the ethic is that God receives the sinners in spite of
their actions or attitudes. Those whom God has accepted became righteous; those
who are made righteous have a change of status. The same term for welcome is used
here as in v.1a thus showing that the welcome towards one another should be the
same as that given by God.
Jewett suggests, welcome to the banquet is the crucial issue here, and Paul
probably relies on the widely shared tradition of Christ as the host of the Lords
Supper, the master of the love feast, acting in behalf of God to welcome the faithful
into the messianic banquet in fulfilment of the ancient prophecies.
44
Jewett and
Ksemann consider that the recipient of this welcome is him (ouov), which seems
to be a general reference to both the weak and the strong. But Dunn makes a
pertinent observation: the exhortation here (v.3c) is a rebuke particularly to the
condemnatory attitude of the weak (vv.3b, 4): the one with the much tighter
understanding of what is acceptable conduct for Gods people would think that God

were an integral part of that trust. Dunn, Romans 9-16, 798. Dunn also considers that Pauls counter
emphasis on faith (14:1, 2, 22-23) is not at all surprising and fits into the overall argument of the
letter far more closely than has usually been perceived. Dunn, Romans 9-16, 800.
43
Moo, Romans, 837.
44
239

has not accepted the other.
45
The immediate object of the welcome here is the
strong. Pauls wording is similar to that of the Psalms: (LXX Ps 26:10; cf. 64:4;
72:24) o t |upio pootioto t (the Lord has welcomed me). This
acceptance in the worship context is described in the context of the Christian love
feast (Rom 12:13; 13:10; 14:1).
46

6.3.1.3. Receiving One Another (15:7a)
The entire exhortation on the weak and the strong beginning from 14:1 has its
climax in 15:7, which begins with io (therefore)
47
to urge them to receive one
another as Christ has welcomed you (pooioovtot oiiqiou, |oo |oi o
Xpioo pootioto uo). The admonition to the strong to accept the weak in
faith (14:1) and the reference to God welcoming the strong (14:3) is broadened to
welcome one another (15:7), which is a very interesting shift of focus. Here the
recipients are two groups, the strong and the weak; they need to welcome one
another irrespective of their status. This is similar to the command not to judge one
another (14:13) and to strive for edification for one another (14:19), where both
groups need to invite and welcome others. If only one group has decided to welcome
others, there will be an imbalance of proper behaviour. As Jewett rightly suggests,
The hostility cannot be overcome if only one side participates in this breaking down
of barriers, and the barriers themselves can most effectively be dismantled by sharing
in sacramental love feasts in which Christs inclusion of insiders and outsiders is

45
Jewett, Christian Tolerance, 129. Ksemann, Romans, 369; Meeks, Judgment and the Brother,
295. Dunn, Romans, 803. It is also significant that Paul is describing here God rather than Christ. In
these two chapters God and Christ are used with differing emphasis: God as the final authoritative
figure (14:6, 10, 18 and 15:6), whereas Christ as the subordinate figure, who accepts to the glory of
God (14:3, 6, 10-12, 17-18, 20, 22; 15:5-6). See Dunn, Romans 9-16, 803.
46
See Jewett, Romans, 841.
47
Lio sums up the preceding discussions and indicates a concluding statement. Cranfield, Romans,
2:739; See BDAG, 250.
240

recalled and celebrated.
48
Thus the task of receiving is applied to both groups as
they welcome one another.
6.3.1.4. As Christ has welcomed (15:7b)
The use of |oo is significant since the welcome should be in the pattern of
Christ: just as Christ has welcomed you; comparing the manner of Jesus welcome.
It means more than tolerating or giving official recognition.
49
What Paul has in
mind is not simply the fact of Christs acceptance, but the manner of it (io|ovo
v.8): it is precisely the humbling of oneself to a position where ones own opinions
do not count and may not be thrust on another (ones master!), which both weak and
strong, Gentile and Jew, need to practice.
50

Paul is here pointing to Christ who has shown a model of how to welcome
others even if they were enemies. He was the host in the love feasts and Christs
death for the sinners shows that the members of the congregations have received an
undeserved welcome. This is clear in 15:3 and 15:8f where Jesus did not please
himself but he loved those who rejected him and killed him; the reproaches of those
who reproached you fell on me (15:3). This may remind us of Christs attitude to
sinners by welcoming them to the feast during his earthly ministry (Matt 9:9-11; cf.
Mk 2:13-17; Lk 5:27-32)
It is striking that the same verb pooioovooi is used here to describe the
redemption of Christ as well as the welcoming attitude to one another in the
congregations (15:7a, b). This implies his love to sinners shown on the cross by
sacrificing his whole life. A Christian has to follow the footsteps of Christ in loving

48
Jewett, Romans, 888; Jewett, Tolerance, 29. Paul possibly emphasizes the main aim of the letter, i.e.
the privilege of the Jews and the inclusion of the Gentiles within the promise of God. It is more likely
that the point is mutual acceptance irrespective of different practices rather than converting the Jewish
congregation to Paulinism as suggested by Watson. See Watson, Paul, 97-98; Dunn, Romans 9-16,
846.
49
Moo, Romans, 874.
50
241

others without pleasing themselves, yet bearing the scruples of the weak (15:1).
Christs welcome is irrespective of ethnic, social and theological barriers as well.
There is an echo of inclusivity in uo as it includes various groups in Rome. Jewett
suggests, it is an ethic of obligation anchored in the ancient views of reciprocity as
he quotes Reasoner

who comments, Christs acceptance of the believer forms the
basis for the obligation to accept a fellow member.
51
However, I would suggest this
is not obligatory behaviour, but the self-giving of Christ acts as a pattern of conduct
to accept a fellow member. It is something to which believers need to tune their
character. The ultimate aim of welcome is to the glory of God, i.e. to praise God with
one mind and one mouth (15:7c cf. v.6).
6.4. Judging as Hindrance to Welcoming
Judging is the main issue Paul is dealing with that has a negative control over
relationships, since his rebuke of judging follows that of his admonition on the act of
welcoming, implying that welcome is hindered or completely blocked by judging the
brother.
52
These arguments on judging in the diatribe style show that Paul is strongly
condemning the destructive actions of a Christian believer to another. It is striking
and apparently deliberate that the section on judgment in Rom 14 has parallels to
Rom 2 and its reproof of judging (|pivtiv) another (2:1-3; 14:3-4, 10) with a
reminder of the judgment seat of God (2:16; 14:10-12).
53

6.4.1. Who are you who are judging? (14:4)
The section on judging opens with a rhetorical question (v.4): Who are you
who are judging? It is in a diatribe style marked by the colloquial expression ou

51
Jewett, Romans, 889; Reasoner, The Strong, 194.
52
Kpivo has meanings such as a) to select, prefer, e.g. Rom 14:5a; b) to pass judgment upon the
lives and actions of other people, Matt 7:1a, 2a; Lk 6:37a; Rom 2:1, 3; 14:3f, 10, 13a; Col 2:16; 1
Cor 4:5 ; c) to think, consider, look upon, Acts 13:46; 2 Cor 5:14; 1 Cor 11:13; d) to reach a decision,
Acts 3:13; 20:16; 25:25; 1 Cor 2:2; 5:3; Tit 3:12; Rom 14:13b; 2 Cor 2:1; e) to engage in the judicial
process; and f) to ensure justice for someone; BDAG, 567-569.
53
Meeks, Judgment and the Brother, 296.
242

i ti (who are you?).
54
Here it may mean, Who do you think you are, you who are
putting yourself in the position of judge over another believer?
55
Each believer is
answerable to his own master, who is responsible for the members of his own
household. This gives a picture of the master-slave relationship of the Greco-Roman
world. The phrase oiiopio oi|tq, which is translated as someone elses slave
or servant, overlooks the difference between oi|tq and ouio.
56
Jewett
suggests, the former denotes a normally inalienable member of the house-hold,
including slaves, who function almost as family members, whereas the latter is
ordinarily limited to slaves and hired servants, whether in the household or in other
service.
57
The house-hold connotation for believers was used by Paul in beloved of
God (1:7), children of God (8:16), heirs of God joint heirs with Christ (8:17),
the elect of God (8:33), the children of the promise (9:8). Probably, the use of the
term suggests that his aim is not to undermine the status of members of the Roman
house and tenement churches but to establish their equality with each other in
relation to the authority of their |upio (Lord/Master).
58

Paul says that no believer has the right to judge because each believer is a
house-hold slave belonging to another. It is to his master (|upio) that he stands or
falls. |upio is used with the same secular meaning as that of master. This title is
significant to the theological argument of vv.4-9; it is used nine times in this passage

54
S. K. Stowers, The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans (SBLDS, 57; Chicago: Scholars
Press, 1981), 115.
55
Moo, Romans, 839.
56
See also Dunn, Romans 9-16, 803; Moo, Romans, 839; Cranfield, Romans, 2:698; Jewett, Romans,
841. oi|tq is used only once in Paul. There is some distinction between oi|toi and ouioi.
Aiiopio is more emphatic than using ttpo.
57
58
243

along with the verb lord it over and interchanging with God (Oto) and Christ
(Xpioo).
59

The ideal of the Christian community is different from that of the Jewish
community, since the evaluation of a Christian should be in connection with the
Lord. The basis of the Christian commitment is not some written laws that judge
those who are not observing them but mutual tolerance even if one does not
observe the rules. The mutual tolerance demanded by Paul in the Roman churches
requires that neither side allow their strongly-held convictions to determine the
contours of Christian commitment.
60

He directs his words not only to one group since he is aware that both are at
fault in their attitude to their fellow brothers and sisters. The one who eats should not
despise the one who does not eat, and the one who does not eat is not to judge the
one who does (14:3). Despise means disdainful judgment.
61
Paul states that mutual
judgment is not valid as long as God has received him. The metaphorical use of the
terms stand or fall shows the relationship of the slave to the master. It is the Lord
that every Christian should please. Moo rightly remarks, Paul here expresses
confidence that the strong believer will persist in the Lords favour. Perhaps Pauls

59
v.3c - God has received him; v.4 - to his own Lord he stands or falls; the Lord will cause him
to stand; v. 6 - observes the day to the Lord; eats to the Lord; give thanks to God; does not eat to
the Lord; give thanks to the Lord; v.8 - we live to the Lord; we die to the Lord; we belong to
the Lord; v.9 - Christ died and came to life, in order that he might also be lord over both the dead
and the living; v.10 - we must all appear before the judgment seat of God; v.11 - as I live, says the
Lord; every tongue will praise God; v.12 - give account to God.
The theological reasons for not judging are given in terms of a believers relationship to God
(interchangeably using the title Lord). Every believer is related to another believer through God,
who is the ultimate authority of the community as well as each believer. The freedom in relation to
others is to be used not in destroying others but in constructively up-building, since each one needs to
be accountable for his/her actions. The basic model of actions is the welcoming pattern of God (and
Christ; 15:7). That every one belongs to God and each one lives or dies to the Lord implies
accountability of his/her own conduct towards God because a fellow believer is someone for whom
Christ died (14:15). The relation of believers to their Lord takes precedence over any difference of
opinion between believers Life and death are much more important differences than disagreement
over diet and days; and not even they disturb the relation between believers and their Lord. Dunn,
Romans 9-16, 808.
60
61
BDAG, 352.
244

intention is to suggest to the weak believer that the Lords approval is attained not
by following rules pertaining to food but by the Lords own sustaining power:
62
is
able (uvoti ),

points both to the possibility and the power of grace.
63

6.4.2. Who are you to judge your brother? (14:10)
The section vv.10-12 of the pericope begins like v.4 with a challenging
question: 2u t i |pivti (But who are you to judge?), which in fact challenges
the habitual judgment.
64
The use of t (but) and ou explains the emphasis Paul is
giving in this argument, since his main point from v.4f. is to avoid mutual judging.
Probably this verse has the same emphasis as that of v.3 since the two major
mistakes are indicated as judging and despising (|pivo and toutvto): Who are
you to judge your brother? Who are you to despise your brother? toutvto can
convey a strong note of contempt, the character of those who see themselves as
strong in order to despise those who are weak in their perspective, whereas |pivo
has a sense of make a judgment regarding with a stress on the act of condemning;
the weak are condemning the strong.
65
|pivtiv, used eight times in chapter 14 (14:3,
4, 5 (2 times), 10, 13 (2 times), 22), denotes the condemnatory judgmental behaviour
of the weak. Christian judgment of things is valid and indeed essential (v.5), but
judgment of people must give place to the judgment of God (vv.10-12).
66

The repeated use of brother is striking, since it is used here in v.10 after 12:1
and is also followed in vv.13, 15 and 21; Pauls concern is that the fellow brother is
being mistreated. The use of the term brother implies brother/sister in Christ.

62
Moo, Romans, 841.
63
64
See Ksemann, Romans, 372; Schlier, Der Rmerbrief , 410; Stowers, Diatribe, 115.
65
toutvto has the same connotation in 2 Kgs 19:21; 2 Chr 36:16; Ezek 22:8; Wisd Sol 4:18;
Luke 23:11; so also |pivo in Rom 2:1, 3, 12, 27; 3:7; 14:4, 10, 22; 1 Cor 5:3, 12-13; 11:31; 2
Thess 2:12 cf. Col 2:16. See Dunn, Romans 9-16, 802.
66
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 808. James 4:12 has a similar argument: ou t i ti, o |pi vov o v iqoiov;
(But who are you that judges your neighbour?, which is also somewhat similar to Matt 7:3: i t
itti o |opo o tv o ooio ou otiou oou; (Why do you see the speck that is in
your brothers eye?).
245

Here the metaphor applies to both parties (cf. v.13) and the other party is denoted by
the metaphor rather than directly addressing the parties, implying the obligations
following from the sibling status of the other.
67
Paul instructs them to avoid judging
or despising a brother/sister at all in order to avoid this kind of offensive behaviour
resulting in his/her ruin (14:15, 21). It implies that the brother/sister should maintain
mutual loyalty in order to build up rather than putting a stumbling block before
him/her.
68
The repeated use of the brother metaphor emphasizes the attitude of a
believer to fellow believers in the context of the Roman churches. The believers
belong to the Lord and all are members of the spiritual brotherhood of believers.
69

It is noteworthy that Pauls metaphors move from the house slaves (14:4) to brothers
and sisters (14:10). Here the first challenge is directed to the weak, who judge others
for not following the law on food and days, whereas the second challenge is aimed at
the strong, who are despising others.
6.4.3. Let us not judge One Another (14:13)
The admonition in v.13 is probably to both groups, the strong and the weak.
The present hortatory subjunctive |pivotv is used to show that an activity that has
been continued must no longer (q|ti) be continued.
70
The verb has an object (one
another) oiiqiou, which makes it clear that the object of exhortation is both
groups.

67
Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers, 214. He uses the metaphor in order to further the interests and
prerogatives of one party in the face of the other party; no one should be made to fall, whether they
are weak or they are strong. This clearly emphasizes mutual responsibility towards others.
68
Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers, 210. It is especially wrong to pass judgment on someone who is a
Christian sibling. Although Paul elsewhere advises to make judgments (1 Thess 5:14a; 1 Cor 5:5, 12;
6:5; 2 Cor 2:6), his aim is to avoid judgments that hinder unity and solidarity between one another.
Pauls use of the brother metaphor has parallels to that of the expectation of the behaviour to a
brother in Antiquity. Terences Adelphoe illustrates the dynamics and strength of the fraternal
relationship (cf. Plutarch 6.7). Aasgaard, My Beloved Brothers, 70, 210.
69
H. Freiherr von Soden, otio |i., TDNT 1, 145; Cranfield, Romans, 2:709.
70
BDAG, 568.
246

Barrett argues that the second clause oiio ouo |pivot oiiov (v.13)
describes the judgment that both sides are to make on the basis of Pauls
admonitions, since |pivtiv is used in the aorist, second person plural.
71
On the basis
of the first clause, Calvin Roetzel argues that Paul is eager to bring to an end the
condescending and derisive judgments and to encourage a new concern for the
brother.
72
Kpivtiv here means to decide not to put an offence in the
brothers/sisters way. That means, deciding not to place a stumbling block before a
brother/sister (o otio, which includes all believers v.13c). The use of
poo|oo (stumbling block) and o|ovoiov (hindrance) (both words are used in
connection with idolatry in Jewish thought but probably not here) explains how
judging can be a destructive force in the way of a brother/sister.
73
Christ is referred to
as the stone of stumbling (Rom 9:32-33), a citation of Isa 8:14. o|ovoiov refers to
cause of ruin or occasion of misfortune in the LXX.
74
What is the stumbling block
in this instruction? Presumably, Paul is concerned about putting an end to negative
evaluation of the sibling, i.e. by taking care not to place in his way anything that
might cause him to fall from his Christian faith and practice.
75
In sharing common
meals, if one group forces the other to go against their conviction, then it would be a
stumbling block as far as the second group is concerned.
6.5. Cost and Effect of Welcoming
6.5.1. Obligation: Bearing the Scruples (15:1a)
The strong are obliged to do welcoming at the cost of bearing the scruples of
the weak: otiiotv t qti oi uvooi o ootvqoo ov ouvoov

71
Barrett, Romans, 262.
72
C. J. Roetzel, Judgment in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between Eschatology and
Ecclesiology in Paul (Leiden: Brill, 1972), 134.
73
poo|oo and o|ovoiov are used in 1 Cor 8:9 and 1 Cor 8:13.
74
G. Sthlin, o|ovoiov, o|ovoii o TDNT 7 (1971) 339.
75
Barrett, Romans, 241, 242.
247

oootiv. The language of obligation is characteristic of Romans while Paul did
not use it in I Corinthians.
76
Obligation is defined in the Roman legal context as
follows: Obligationum substantia non in eo consistit, ut aliquod corpus nostrum aut
seruitutem nostram faciat, sed ut alium nobis obstringat ad dandum aliquid uel
faciendum uel praestandum (The essence of obligations does not consist in that it
makes some property or a servitude ours, but that it binds another person to give, do,
or perform something for us).
77

Paul declares that he is obliged to Greeks and Barbarians (1:14), whereas the
believers are obliged to the Spirit to live as the Spirit wants them to (8:12), and are
obliged to love one another (13:8). Why is it stated that the strong category is obliged
to bear the other category that of the weak? Probably since he numbers himself
among the strong and wants to start the admonition from the strong side to the weak,
and he reverses the Greco-Roman system of obligation, where the weak have to
submit to the strong. The Pauline system of obligation reverses this cultural
peculiarity by saying that the strong are obliged to bear (oootiv) the weaknesses
of the weak.
78
It implies that the initiative is taken from the strong group to honour
the weak group thereby putting into practice the exhortation to outdo one another in
honouring (Rom12:10) by carrying another persons weaknesses. Carrying another

76
otiio is used in Romans 1:14; 8:12; 13:8; 15:1. Obligation functioned through the patronage
system of Corinth; see J. K. Chow, Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth
(JSNTSup 75; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992) and is part of an ethic of reciprocity, since it controls
the moral behaviour of many cultures. Ethic of reciprocity is used by R. P. Saller, and is quoted by
Reasoner and Jewett. See R. P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 1982), 19; Reasoner uses the term ethic in the sense of moral code.
See Reasoner, The Strong, 176; Jewett, Romans, 876.
77
Digest of Justinian (eds. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Krueger; trans. and ed. Alan Watson;
Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 44.7.3, cited by Reasoner, The Strong, 181. It
denotes the interpersonal relationship and it is a dynamic behind patronage. The Roman moralist
speaks about gradations of duty as our first duty is to the immortal gods; our second, to country; our
third, to parents; and so on, in descending scale, to the rest. Panaetius, according to Cicero, Off.
1.160, cited by Reasoner, The Strong, 182.
78
oooo has a sense of bear, endure; bear patiently, put up with: weakness, BDAG, 171. In
Galatians 6:2, it is said, bear one anothers burdens and fulfil the law of Christ (oiiqiov o opq
ooott |oi ouo ovoiqpoott ov voov ou _pioou ). Another parallel is Matt 8:7 as a
quotation of Isa 53:4: He took our weaknesses and bore our diseases.
248

persons weaknesses implies carrying the weak themselves by placing ones strength
in the place of the weaknesses and probably placing oneself in anothers position.
Accept as our own burden
79
has a sense of identifying with their struggles and
weaknesses. It needs more power and strength so as not to please themselves, thereby
imparting Christ-like character.
It is striking that he balances the obligation to each of us in pleasing the
neighbour for good (v.2). Why and in what ways are the strong obliged to the
weak is the question that comes to our mind. Jewett suggests, Having received the
supreme gift of salvation, granted freely to the undeserving, each recipient has the
reciprocal obligation of gratitude to the divine giver and of passing on the gift with
the similar generosity to others who are equally undeserving.
80
The strong ought to
bear the scruples of the weak; the scruples may mean any failings that they had to
undergo, which they could not bear by themselves, but for which they needed
support and help.
6.5.2. Serving the interests of the other (15:2, 3)
The obligation to bear the weakness of the weak should have an essential
qualification as not to please ourselves (|oi q touoi opto|tiv; 15:1). The verb
opto|o implies accommodating oneself to someone.
81
Paul reverses the order of
pleasing just as he overturns the obligatory system prevalent in Roman patronage;
the cultural principle is that the superior class have the capacity to please themselves
while those in the lower level lack ability and also as slaves and members of the

79
Cranfield, Romans, 2:731; Dunn, Romans 9-16, 837.
80
Jewett, Romans, 876. The obligation is defined as a duty that ought to be done as a result of
receiving the new life in Christ, which is derived from faith in the gospel, the gift of the spirit, and
membership in the community of faith.
81
BDAG, 129. Rom 15:1 cf. Gal 1:10; 1 Thess 2:4; 1 Cor 10:33.
Epictetus refers to pleasing oneself: Make it your wish then to please your own self, and you will be
pleasing to god! Epictetus, Dissertations, 2.18.19. In Assumption of Moses, pleasing oneself is given
in the negative sense as that of Paul: deceitful men, self-pleasing, hypocrites in all their affairs.
Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary, (trans.) Johannes Tromp (Leiden: Brill,
1993), 16-17.
249

urban underclass always work to please their masters;
82
the important Pauline
concept of pleasing is that in Christ, those who are able should serve the powerless
by not pleasing themselves which has its implications in not destroying the work of
God (14:15, 20), pursuing peace and mutual up building (14:19) and keeping away
from anything that offends others (14:21).
Although Paul sides with the strong and places the responsibility of bearing on
their shoulders (as their first choice), reversing the existing pattern of obligation of
the Roman system, he broadens his vision of obligation in the Christian community
by sharing the responsibility between both sides -- weak and strong -- with the
formulation each of us. This clearly envisions the Pauline concept of community
with all the members equally participating in their effort of mutual up-building (12:3-
8), which again contrasts with the Roman social system that assumes the powerful
are able to act independently.
The mutual responsibility is qualified by pleasing the neighbour (iqoiov) for
good and mutual up building. The fulfilment of the law by loving your neighbour is
referred to in 13:9-10, while Paul speaks of his apostolic strategy to please all
people in all he does (1 Cor 10:33). Neighbour (iqoiov) has a broader definition
of ones fellow human being,
83
which means here the fellow believer or, in a much
broader context, those whom they associate with.
The pattern of Christs receiving others without pleasing himself is the
fundamental model in relationships to one another. It brings to light that the
redemptive action of Christ has not been fulfilled in our righteous mode but in our
undeserving and unrighteous mode of character. The aorist verb qptotv implies

82
83
Klaus Haacker, iqoiov EDNT 3 (1993) 113.
250

Jesus selfless attitude in his entire ministry (Phil 2:3-5).
84
Christ did not please
himself but as it is written the reproaches of those who reproached you fell on me
(Rom 15:3 cf. Ps 69:9). Paul quotes the Psalmist in a way that has Jesus speaking
about the reproaches (ovtio means disgrace, scandal, abuse, shame etc.)
85
that fell
on him. Christ died the most shameful of deaths in behalf of the shamed.
86
In the
context of Rom 15, Paul wants to maintain a mutually accepting attitude between
the strong and the weak, which has the stunning implication that contempt and
judging going on between the Roman congregations add to the shameful reproach
that Christ bore on the cross for the sake of all.
87
The two groups should work for
mutual honour and integrity by pleasing others rather than judging and despising that
tends to shame others.
6.5.3. Love as Core Attitude (14:15)
If one does not care about others and sticks to selfish ideals in the matter of
food, relationships in the community could be broken by means of offending others,
and the offender is not walking in love (14:15a);
88
the theological reason is not to
destroy or continue to destroy the one for whom Christ has died (14:15b). Christs
death for all was mentioned in Rom 5:6, 8 and the inclusive character of his earthly
ministry etc. implies the worth of each individual in the eyes of God.
Sigfred Pederson notes that not walking according to love is a sin since the
love of God through Christ has not thus accomplished the objective of establishing

84
Barrett, Romans, 296; Cranfield, Romans, 2:732.
85
Johannes Schneider, ovtio |i., TDNT 5 (1967) 238.
86
87
88
Walking (tpioto) is a distinctive Pauline metaphor that denotes ones actions and life. Georg
Bertram and Heinrich Seesemann think that he has adapted it from the LXX usage; ( e.g. Prov 8:20).
See Georg Bertram and Heinrich Seesemann, oto, |i., TDNT 5 (1967), 544. Paul used to urge
the congregations to walk worthily of God (1 Thess 2:12; cf. 2 Cor 4:2; Phil 3:17).
251

a new eschatological reality in this world of sin.
89
Love can be seen as the
continuing, opposite force acting against destruction and acting towards the building
up of the individual or the community. I agree with Jewett, as he suggests, When
people are impelled to act in violation of their individual conscience, no matter how
it has been formed in their familial and cultural tradition, they lose their integrity and
their capacity to act as moral agents.
90

Love is manifested in different realms of a believers life in excellent manners
such as receiving and bearing (14:1; 15:1, 7). oyoq means to prefer or to set
one good or aim above another to esteem one person more highly than other,
which matches Gods love for humans.
91
Thus, oyoq shows the character of real
love as the love of the higher lifting up the lower and giving ones self in its totality
for others. The strong should receive and support the weak in matters of faith as well
as their failings. Dunn suggests, the golden rule of love of neighbour which has
knit together the earlier exhortation (12:3, 9-10, 13, 14-17, 21;13:8-10) continues to
be the leading principle governing relationships strained by differences on important
matters affecting faith and communal lifestyle (particularly 14:15).
92
Love protects
the personal as well as communitarian unity and integrity.
6.5.4. Christian Unity
Paul encourages the believers to have the same mind (o ouo povtiv) as
that of Christ (15:5). o ouo povtiv is used (12:16) in the sense of harmony

89
S. Pederson, Agape - der eschatologische Hauptbegriff bei Paulus. In S. Pederson (ed.). Die
Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Anlsslich der 50. jhringen Grndungs-Feier der Universitt
Aarhus. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1980, 159-86, at 167. The consequence of not walking
in love is the ruin of the brother, for whom also the redemptive action is effected. The person is
being destroyed is a metaphorical expression that emphasizes the continual effect.
90
Jewett, Romans, 862. To act without regard to ones own conscience is to enter into destruction
through the dissolution of the self through the loss of personal unity and integrity. Jewett,
Tolerance, 55.
91
E. Stauffer, oyooo, oyoq, oyoqo, TDNT 1, 21-55, at 36. oyoqo is used to show
that a person is so dear.
92
252

between the groups that allows solidarity by associating with the lowly and not
cherishing haughty thoughts in oneself. It acknowledges the same Lordship without
eradicating their cultural differences.
Paul is emphasizing Christ as the exemplar for the two groups to follow. The
groups with diversities and differences have the Christological motivation for unity
between them, if they work for the good and up building of each other by
considering others better than themselves and honouring the interests of others; let
each of us please his neighbour for his good, to edify him (15:2). For Jewett, This
produces a distinctive form of same-mindedness because the focus is no longer on
achieving unanimity in doctrine or practice but rather on bearing abuse for each
other and pleasing each other as Christ did.
93
The same mind as that of Christ helps
to glorify God with one mind and one voice (15:6). Paul encourages the Roman
believers to be of the same mind even in the midst of differing strengths, which are
manifested in their attitudes to food, days etc.
6.5.5. Christian Community Ideals
Romans 14, 15 are rich in describing the ideals of the Christian community. I
categorize these ideals into two groups, since those belonging to the first group are
those to which a believer should put in his/her effort, whereas the second category
characterizes the free gifts from God. They are:
a. Love (14:15), righteousness (14:17), peace and joy in the Holy Spirit (14:17,
19; 15:10, 13);
b. Patience and comfort (15:4, 5), mercy (15:9) truth of God (15:8), promises
(15:8), hope (15:13 twice).

93
253

Paul, while defining the relationships in the community that would ultimately
transform the experience as the reign of God, is speaking in terms of what it does not
and what it does make up (14:17). It is not eating and drinking, which are temporary
and limited, but it is constituted by righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit
that are long lasting and also transferable constructive principles. On the one hand,
Paul wants to say that the kingdom of God could not be practised in terms of the
destructive behaviours and offensive disposition towards one another. On the other,
he wants to emphasize the fruit of the spirit (Gal 5:22) that helps the growth of the
community rather than judging and despising on matters that destroy relationships in
the community. The synchronization of the three important beneficial community
principles such as righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit echoes Ps 84:4 and
also describes the desirable attitudes in the community, which need to be controlled
by the power of the Holy Spirit. For Murray the three significant terms should be
taken as the rectitude and behaviour of the believer within the fellowship of Christ.
94

The expression pursue peace in 14:19 is biblical, denoting a righteous man in
Ps 34:14 (LXX 33:14), qouoov tipqvqv, |oi ioov ouqv (seek peace and
pursue it). Eipqvqv io|tiv is an idiom in the early Christian speech (2 Tim 2:22;
Heb 12:14; 1 Pet 3:11) and may be based on Ps 34:14 (as is clear in 1 Pet 3:11).
95

Ksemann defines peace as openness toward everyone.
96
The God-given aspect and
corporate dimension of peace is seen in 14:17, 18; the kingdom of God is not eating
and drinking but righteousness, peace and joy in the Holy Spirit, thereby indicating
that this conduct is pleasing to God and approved by men and women. The plural

94
Murray, Romans, 2:194.
95
Dunn, Romans 9-16, 824. Eipqvq has a corporate dimension rather than an individual dimension,
since Paul is dealing with the issues relating to community; there is no peace with God in a divided
community (v.17). Elsewhere in Paul peace is used in Rom 15:13, 32; 2 Cor 1:15, 24; 2:3; 7:13;
8:2; Gal 5:22; Phil 1:4, 25; 2:2, 29; 4:1, etc.
96
254

formulation of the things of peace (o q tipqvq) may point to the different issues
in which Paul and his colleagues had to work for making unity and harmony.
Apparently, it also indicates Pauls accommodation to different peoples of different
status as all things to all people (1 Cor 9:19-23).
6.5.6. The Up-Building Metaphor (oi|ooq 14:19; 15:2)
Welcoming one another has its result in mutual up-building. The change from
the third person singular (v.18) to first person plural (v.19) implies that Paul and his
associates are examples for the weak and the strong to pursue (io|tiv) peace and
the edification of others.
The expression to pursue peace (14:19) has a corresponding expression o
q oi|ooq the edification of one another, which amplifies the significance of
the former pursue peace. Cranfield suggests that this expression should probably
be understood as serving more to fill out and clarify the significance which o q
tipqvq has in this context.
97
The use of oi|ooq is characteristic of Pauls
language to denote congregational work (1 Cor 3:9-10; 14:3, 5, 12, 26; 2 Cor 10:8;
12:19; 13:10). In the LXX, the term is used to describe Gods building of Israel (Jer
12:16; 38:4, 28; 40:7; 49:10; 45:4; 51:34). There are also parallels in the Qumran
community which is described as eternal planting of a holy house for Israel and a
circle of the Most High who witness to the truth of the law and make atonement for
the land and judge the helpless.
98
Although the metaphor of building is the same, the
context in the early Christian communities is different and the task of up-building is
broader than in the context of the Qumran community
99
and there are closer parallels

97
Cranfield, Romans, 2:721.
98
IQS 8:5-10
99
oi|ootiv as a spiritual task in a community in Otto Michel, oi|ooto |i., TDNT 5 (1967)
140-42. Edification defines the unity and growth of the community as the task of every charismatic
action of individuals. Ksemann, Romans, 378.
255

to Pauls up-building of the community in Epicurean philosophical communities.
100

To build up one another includes groups, the weak and the strong, to work for the
other side. The oiiqiou formula (cf.14:13) calls forth both the groups to unite and
work together for mutual edification. Jewett suggests, as each group supports the
integrity of the other and encourages growth in others, a mutually nurturing
community flourishes.
101

The double emphasis (ti o oyoov po oi|ooqv 15:2) to strive for the
good and the up-building with the effect of pleasing ones neighbour indicates that
Paul is reinstating the earlier exhortations (13:10a), love does not do evil to the
neighbour, the quality of goodness versus evil that each believer should uphold
(12:9), and the need to make every effort to overcome evil (12:21), thereby giving
preference to the neighbour. Seeking the good of others results in mutual up-
building, which refers to the communitarian aspect rather than the individual sense.
If each believer seeks the good of his neighbour, this has its effect in goodness and
up-building of the community in its total dimension. In 1 Thess 5:11, Paul urges the
recipients of the letter to build up each one implying the task and effort of building
one another, reversing the cultural paradigm of seeking good for themselves by
dishonouring others. As Jewett rightly suggests, If each group seeks constructively
to encourage the development of integrity and maturity in other groups, rather than
trying to force them to conform to a single viewpoint, the ethnic and theological

100
There are four dimensions of Epicurean correction practice; one involving self-correction, another
when a correction is administered by others, thirdly, when members report errors to the teachers for
them to correct, and finally, when the wise correct each other a network of social relations in which
active participation of friends is presupposed in mutual edification, admonition and correction. Glad,
Paul and Philodemus, 132; (see also 124-132). Pauline communal psychagogy in Romans 14-15 is
different from Epicurean Communal Psychagogy in which an asymmetrical relationship between
the weak and powerful is assumed but Paul emphasizes the responsibility of the latter and the
need of accommodation for both ... to teach members of his communities to implement a certain form
of mutual psychagogy. Glad, Paul and Philodemus, 214.
101
Jewett, Romans, 866; Jewett, Tolerance, 139.
256

diversity in Rome would no longer be divisive and destructive.
102
It seems that Paul
reinstates the implications of the body metaphor here, since the body works for a
common purpose in spite of differences and diversities in the tasks of its members
(Rom 12). Similarly, oi|ooq calls forth unity in the purpose of the community to
work for the edification of one another. As M. L. Reid rightly suggests, Pauls
rhetoric of mutuality thus defines the social reciprocity that exemplifies acceptable
and honourable community conduct.
103

6.5.7. Sustaining Mutual Identity
Through the admonition not to despise the weak or to insist on them changing
their life style, Paul seems to protect the law-observing character of Jewish
Christianity. He seems to approve that they could observe the food laws and Sabbath,
thereby maintaining their social integrity in the Roman society. However, they need
to accept those who are not observing the same; he requires them to relate with the
brothers and sisters in Christ. On the other hand, he sides with the strong by
explicitly expressing his own conviction that in the Lord Jesus the Jewish laws
might be done away with. He does not want the strong to follow the practices of the
weak, rather to accommodate them by allowing them to keep their own identity,
which is a very significant characteristic of the Christian community.
It is striking that he bases his arguments on the subject of the honour of the
Lord (14:4); their actions are in a way related to the Lord so that the weak Christians
have to associate with the other group on the basis of their common faith in Jesus
the Lord. The law observance as well as the non-observance is equally valid in the
sight of the Lord. As Barclay suggests,

102
103
M. L. Reid, Pauls Rhetoric of Mutuality: A Rhetorical Reading of Romans, in E. H. Lovering
(ed.), SBL Papers (Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995), 117-139 at 137. S. J. Stowers interprets the
principle of faithfulness as adaptability to others; S. J. Stowers, A Re-reading of Romans: Justice,
Jew, and Gentiles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994), 318.
257

In prayer and worship (15:7-13), in common meals (14:1ff.), in the
sharing of prophecy and teaching (12:6-7), financial resources (12:8) and
the common kiss (16:16), they are required to express a deep bond of
unity with people fundamentally neglectful of the law. They are even
expected to welcome Paul and to pool their spiritual gifts with his (1:11-
12), just as they are now asked to pray for his visit to Jerusalem (15:30-
32). In all these ways, while accepting their right to remain attached to
the Jewish community, Paul requires from the weak a deep social
commitment to their fellow Christians, even if they do not respect the
Jewish law in their conduct.
104

6.6. The Pauline Ethos of Mutuality
It is very interesting to note the paradigm of mutuality -- Pauline love
mutualism as I call it -- since love has an important role in leading to mutual
responsibilities. Paul envisages such mutuality in Romans as he urges the two groups
in Rom 14-15 in their dealings with one another. This is significantly different from
the simple idea of reciprocity and mutualism because it has the procedure of being
servants of one another, without pleasing themselves, each side giving priority to the
others with the participation of both parties in a dynamic reversal of position like the
pedal of a bicycle (a continuous and reciprocal movement, up and down).
The same pattern of mutualism that Paul depicts in Rom 12-13 can be seen in
Rom 14, 15 and 16. Paul moves from the plain idea of interdependence to a new
pattern of relationship serving one another in mutualism based on love. The manner
of Christ is involved as the two groups emerge mutually edified and mutually
welcomed, without any necessary change in their mutual identity. The mutual
exchange of joy, peace, righteousness, hope, truth, grace, promises etc. takes place.
The edification passes on to others as a chain reaction since each and every member
of the congregation is involved in this process in its total dimension. In this section
we deal with the similarities and significant dissimilarities between the simple idea
of reciprocity and the Pauline ethos of reciprocity.

104
258

6.6.1. oiiqiou: Two way Relationships
Pauls admonition to love and care for each other is significant among his
teachings to the community of believers. The main aim is to encourage the believers
to have a proper conduct towards each other, i.e. the emphasis is on mutuality. The
oiiqiou language is carried into chapters 14 and 15 from 12 and 13
105
as Paul
encourages the Roman Christians to practise mutual relations to fellow believers,
although he distinguishes the community into two groups the strong and the
weak. There are four (oiiqiou) one another references in chapters 14-15:1-13.
a. Do not judge one another (14:13)
b. Let us pursue matters that lead to peace and to edification for one another
(14:19)
c. May the God of endurance and of comfort give to you the power to think the
same thing among one another according to Jesus Christ (15:5)
d. Welcome one another, therefore, as Christ has welcomed you, for the glory
of God (15:7)
Pauls desire is to urge unity and solidarity among the believers by enhancing
mutual relations. He wants to emphasize this in the different dimensions of life of a
Christian, i.e. it can be explicit in different forms of love such as affection,
generosity, hospitality, identifying with, honouring and forgiving (chapters 12-13).
The attitude of sober mindedness (12:3) creates other-mindedness and as members
of the one body (in Christ), each ones task of welcoming, bearing and edifying
one another is significant; its implication to the community is also remarkable as
each one is required to avoid judging that destroys the work of God and ruins the
fellow brother/sister.

105
As we have seen in the previous chapter 5 (5.2), internal relationships within the community are
emphasized by the word oiiqiou.

259

6.6.2. Dynamic Relationship
The basic idea of reciprocity has the characteristic of two-way relationships,
and reciprocity in antiquity can be on equal or on unequal grounds. However, the
uniqueness of Pauline mutuality is that there is the dynamism involved by the
reversal of positions. Receiving one another includes a repeated process of change in
position; continuous change to put others in balance. This type of relationship can be
sustained by being servants of one another and by regarding others as brother/sister
(sibling).
Servants of One Another: The Christological motivation for the dynamic
process of behaviour in welcoming, bearing, pleasing, edifying etc. is the
fundamental mode of the community relationships, leading to unity and harmony.
Rom 15:1-3 is closely parallel to Mk 10:45: Jesus came to the world not to be
served, but to serve. Being servants of one another doesnt work unless one
individual/group is ready to accept a lower state which automatically uplifts the
opposite group. It needs surrendering of selfish motives for the sake of others. In
turn, the recipient of the service intends to serve the donor by going through the
same process in return for the same purpose.
The strong and the weak members of the community represent the diversities
and differences in a community just like the body, which probably helps the
community to follow Christs pattern of behaviour in the matter of welcoming
described in Rom 14, 15. If all the members are either weak or strong, how can the
community exercise the character of other-mindedness? The effectiveness of the
Christ-like character could be revealed only if it is given an opportunity. Those who
have greater strengths are obliged to bear those of the lesser, thereby implying
mutuality in the community as seen in the body metaphor: giving more honour to
260

other members. The implications of being the body of Christ are expressed in
receiving one another as Christ has received them all. It seems that the gist of all that
Paul has explained regarding being one body in Christ and members of one another
is clearly implied in the action of mutual welcoming. The act of welcoming or
receiving does imply the denial of ones own motives in order to promote others.
Brother/Sister Metaphor: It is striking to note how Paul brings up relationships
to one another by introducing models from the practical realm. If the first metaphor
he used in Rom 14-15 is the servant model (14:4), the second pattern of relationship
is depicted as the membership of one family (14:10, 13, 15, 21). This emphasizes the
strong relationship between those who are knit together in Christ and work for a
common purpose. It implies the belonging togetherness of the members
106
and their
effort for the common good and lifting up of one another.
Working for the common good involves honouring others rather than oneself.
As Aasgaard puts it, Pauls aim in the use of this metaphor is to make each party
hold the other party in higher esteem than previously.
107
The singular usage of the
brother metaphor probably indicates individual responsibility towards others as well
as to God (14:12), that although working as groups, an individuals responsibility
towards another individual is part of the responsibility of the whole group to attain
its destined purpose. In other words, if a community fails to attain its goal, each and
every member of it needs to take the responsibility of his/her failure of mission
towards its achievement.

106
See A. D. Clarke, Equality or Mutuality? Pauls Use of Brother Language in P. J. Williams, et
al., (eds.), The New Testament in Its First Century Setting: Essays on Context and Background in
honour of B. W. Winter (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2004), 151-164, at 164; P. Arzt Grabner, Brothers
and Sisters in Documentary Papyri and in Early Christianity, Revista Biblica 50 (2002), 187-202.
107
Aasgaard, My beloved brothers, 214.
261

6.7. Conclusion
The paradigm of mutuality that Paul emphasizes in Rom 14, 15 is made
concrete in mutual welcome. The attitudes of judgment and despising are hindrances
to this positive aspect of relationships. Genuine love to a brother or sister is shown
by accepting him/her in the present state of existence, even if in the undeserving
state, which is the pattern of the cross; Christ made us righteous by bearing all our
sins on himself. Evaluating one another is to be made in the pattern of Christ. The
Christian iiotiio (Rom 12:10) and |oivovio (Rom 12:13) are expressed in the
form of welcoming one another each retaining their respective identity, in observing
or not observing Jewish practices.
The eventual purpose of love mutualism is that it glorifies God and the Father
of our Lord Jesus Christ: accept one another to the glory of God (15:7). Love
mutualism not only works between humans, but it begins with God bestowing grace
through Christ to humans; humans pass on this grace to each other; and it ends in
glorification and thanksgiving, thus completing a cycle. Since grace is involved in
love mutualism, it can work not only in favourable situations but also in
unfavourable conditions. Paul speaks about negative reciprocity (repay evil for evil;
Rom 12:17) and positive reciprocity (repay good for evil; Rom 12:17). Love
mutualism has the power to love enemies and feed them, overcoming evil with good
(Rom 12:21), which is the self-giving model on the cross (loving others and
forgiving others by repaying good for evil).
It is probable that Paul wants to follow the same ethos of mutualism in the
greetings (Rom 16:1-16). One could even think whether Paul desires to give the
Romans a chance to practise love mutualism through greeting one another, to which
he points towards some people, who have exercised this love mutualism towards
262

himself and in the context of the church. Also, Paul urges this love mutualism to
work across all the organs of the body in Christ, irrespective of gender. Therefore
my final attempt is to conclude this thesis by showing that greetings work as a
significant model to enhance love mutualism, which also aims to acknowledge the
hard work of some people towards Paul and the church, irrespective of gender.

263

Chapter 7
Conclusion
Towards a Theology of Love Mutualism
As stated in the introductory chapter, the three major issues focussed in this
research are the leadership roles of women in the Pauline churches as specified in
Romans 16, the disposition of the mutuality reflected in the greetings to men and
women, and the way in which the greetings to men and women in Rom 16 relate to
the ethos of mutualism in Rom 12-15. The Pauline ethos of mutuality embedded in
the greetings to men and women (Rom 16:1-16) seems to be a continuation of the
exhortations to the Romans about how to relate to one another in the body of Christ
following the model of Christ (Rom 12-15); Pauls positive approach to the roles of
women in spite of his prohibitions and restrictions to womens participation in the
church and worship elsewhere is especially striking.
7.1. A Retrospect
In Chapter 2, from the analysis of the form of greetings in the Pauline letters
against the backdrop of the Hellenistic use of greetings, we noted the significance of
the specific form of the greetings (Rom 16:1-16). The second person plural of the
greeting verb, used extensively in Romans 16 has the purpose of encouraging mutual
relationship.
In Chapter 3, study on the leadership of women in the Greco-Roman world
shows that some women of wealth, family and position exerted independence and
freedom, although we cannot generalise that all women had independence. The
analysis shows that womens leadership roles in the Pauline churches is not
countercultural; rather they were part of the culture of the Greco-Roman world.
Chapter 4 analysed the women named (Rom 16:1-16) and greeted with
descriptive phrases indicating their leadership roles in the Church and their actions
264

in relation to Paul. It drew our attention to Pauls acknowledgment of some women,
who worked as his associates, and pointed to relationships of mutuality in the
greetings.
Chapter 5 examined mutuality modelled in the body metaphor and the
recurring a0llh/louv/ a0llh/lwn in Pauls exhortations (Rom 12, 13). The body
metaphor points to the significance of being in Christ and that does not exclude
difference but respects difference as well as belonging togetherness. The repeated
term a0llh/louv signifies that Christian experience is not only an individual
experience but also has social and ethical aspects which are in fact derived from
incorporation into the body of Christ.
In Chapter 6, we came across the contextual application of mutuality in the
community as mutual welcoming and mutual up-building (Rom 14-15). It seems that
differences and diversity in a persons cultural practice may hinder welcoming,
which may be the reason why Paul strongly urges Roman Christians to bear one
another irrespective of position or status.
As we have provided a summary of findings at different junctures, the next
attempt is to draw together the peculiarities of the Pauline ethos of mutuality which
encourages the leadership roles of women in the greetings. A discussion on the
significance of greetings (7.2) in Romans is followed by the discussion on women in
leadership within the structures of mutualism (7.3). Thirdly, 1 Cor 11:1-16 is
discussed briefly to understand whether hierarchy or relationality is the main
emphasis (7.4), and fourthly, a final remark is made on the Pauline ethos of mutuality
in Romans and the further scope of research is outlined (7.5).
265

7.2. The Impact of a0spa/sasqe
0Aspa/sasqe you greet denotes an instruction to greet that forges a web of
relationships. Pauls instruction to the Romans to greet the people named and
mentioned with descriptive phrases works as an introduction to comprehend their
actions with regard to each other as well as to him. The instruction you greet
deepens and strengthens relationships between B (recipients of the letter) and C (the
recipients of the greeting), thus establishing a mutual bond between A (Paul) and B
and between B and C and between A and C.
The persons who do the greeting are not only acting as agents but also as
recipients of others, thus there is a web of mutual interaction. Moreover, the
descriptive phrases used to portray the actions of the people on behalf of the church
and Paul provide strong commendation to the greetings, reinstating positive relations
between Paul and the persons greeted. The relational character of the greetings is
also significant as the persons are described in relation to Paul, Christ and the church.
The belonging togetherness of the community is expressed in the phrase in the Lord
that unifies and maintains the new identity of the believers in relation to Christ,
irrespective of gender, status, and ethnicity.
Pauls instruction to greet ends in instructing the Romans to greet one another
with a holy kiss (Rom 16:16a), that covers all the individuals not specified by name
and unifies the people with different perspectives and practices, thereby holding the
community together in mutual love, which is the focus of Romans (12-15). Mutuality
of relationships in Romans transcends gender discrimination as Paul accepts and
appreciates men and women for their toil with regard to the church and to himself.
Therefore, this type of greeting builds up mutual love among the Roman Christians
in a way that re-positions one another.
266

7.3. The Women in Leadership within the Structures of Mutualism
The women named and greeted with specific roles (Rom 16) are Phoebe, Prisca,
Junia, Persis, Mary, Tryphaena and Tryphosa, Rufus mother, Nereus sister and
Julia. It is quite striking to note that some women clearly exercised leadership roles
and some others actively participated in the ministry of the church as well as Pauls
mission (Rom 16:1-16). Their leadership roles and participation are honoured as the
same as that of men (or over men) which seems to be well known and taken for
granted by the Roman believers. The mutuality of leadership is a remarkable aspect,
whether man or woman in relation to the Lord. It is gender-blind without any special
limitations to women, thereby appearing in the web of mutual exchange. The
practice of mutualism among the leaders can work as a demonstration for the
believers to follow in the community.
Pauls appreciation of the roles of these women drew our attention to the fact
that these women played leadership roles. Firstly, Phoebe as the dia/konov played
an important and significant leadership role in the church of Cenchreae. Her position
is further emphasized in the title prosta/tiv of many as well as of Paul. Her
expected role among the Romans could not be limited to the Spanish mission, since
pra~gma is not a definite matter in the request for help. Moreover, the chiasm of the
passage is woven in such a way as to show the significant aspect of reciprocity. Her
action for others needs to be reciprocated and she is a woman qualified for
hospitality and help in whatever matter she needs. This gives an insight into
Phoebes contribution to the Pauline mission on the one hand and, on the other,
Pauls way of presenting her and his desire to reciprocate her actions on behalf of
many as well as himself.
267

Secondly, Pauls description of Prisca and Aquila as his associates (sunergoi/
mou) and as having risked their lives for his sake, obviously state the relationship
with Paul. But their action on behalf of Paul brought to them thanksgiving
(eu0xaristw~) not only from Paul but also from all the churches of the Gentiles.
Prisca was a co-worker of Paul and possibly acted as the leader of the church in her
house, which consisted of the community of saints. Her contribution was profound as
she was beneficial to all the churches of the Gentiles, including both men and
women.
Thirdly, Paul describes Junia (with Andronicus) as suggenei~v mou and
sunaixma/lwtoi and that implies their relationship to Paul and his co-workers. But
the other two descriptions e0pi/shmoi e0n toi~v a0postolo/iv and pro\ e0mou~ ge/gonan
e0n Xristw~| explicitly state their relationship to the early Christian community and
their significant contribution to the Christian mission as well. First, Junia is portrayed
as an associate of Paul. She is not only an apostle (in a sense of co-worker) but also
prominent among them. The reason for her distinctiveness is not specific, but one can
make out that the reasons may include her toil (fellow prisoner) and missionary zeal
(in Christ before Paul). Second, Pauls description of her as prominent among the
apostles seems to imply that Paul himself will get some benefit by sharing in the
reputation of those who are associates with himself (cf. Rom 16:3, 4). Thirdly, it
reveals the mutual obligation which comes about by being in Christ (cf. Rom 12:5)
that places all the human relationships in a deeper context, i.e. we all belong together
because we are in Christ/the Lord.
Mary, Persis, Tryphoena and Tryphosa were hardworking women and part of
the appreciated and acknowledged team, who had supported Paul and his mission by
various means. Rufus mother was a mother to Paul. Nereus sister and Julia were
268

possibly part of the leadership team of a tenement church. Pauls presentation of
these womens roles in order to be greeted as well as appreciated by the Roman
believers reinforces the Pauline ethos of mutuality.
These women were appreciated for their leadership roles alongside men, and
the endorsement of womens roles elsewhere also gives evidence of Pauls positive
attitude to women in ministry and leadership. Examples include: Apphia (our sister;
Phlm 2); Nympha, greeted with the church in her house (Col 4:15), and Euodia and
Syntyche, co-workers of Paul, who shared his struggles (Phil 4:2, 3).
7.4. 1 Cor 11: 2-16: Restriction or Mutuality in Gender Roles?
Having explored Pauls positive approach to women and their roles in the
church and to himself (Rom 16:1-16), it is paradoxical to hear Pauls seemingly
indifferent tone elsewhere in dealing with the roles of women in the church (1 Cor
11:2-16; cf.14:34f
1
; 1 Tim 2:13f). 1 Cor 11:2-16 posits an apparent ambivalence with
regard to gender relations: on the one hand, the text seems to affirm the
subordination of women, especially with reference to the veiling of women in public
worship. On the other, it seems to affirm mutuality between gender relations. I
consider this passage significantly encourages mutuality in gender relations as in the
greetings (Rom 16:1-16).
In the first stage of Pauls argument, three parallel statements can be seen
(v.3). The head of every man is Christ, the head of every woman is man, and the
head of Christ is God. Kefalh/ has been rendered with different nuances -- such as
head or chief, source or origin which indicates authority, supremacy and leadership.
Judith Gundry-Volf argues that neither merely egalitarian nor merely hierarchical

1
1 Cor 14:34, 35 appears to contradict Pauls approval to pray and prophecy (11:5) and his
affirmation that all are able to prophecy in turn (14:31). I leave the passages 1 Cor 14:34f and 1 Tim
2:13f without further discussion due to the limitation of space and reasons such as arguments on
authorship.
269

interpretations do justice to the complexity of the theological issue for Paul.
2
In this
verse rather than a hierarchy, the relation between God and Christ shows order and
differentiation as well as mutual and reciprocal relationships.
3
This is neither meant
to show subordination nor inferiority rather as Garland suggests, it establishes the
need for loyalty to the head.
4

The second stage of argument is found in vv.4-6, where the participation of
men and women in the Christian assembly is explained. Every man who prays and
prophecies with his head covered dishonours his head, whereas every woman who
prays or prophecies with his head uncovered dishonours her head. As M. D. Hooker
suggests, the man or woman who dishonours his or her own head in the literal sense
brings dishonour also on his or her metaphorical head.
5

Gundry-Volf observes that the characterization of the Mediterranean world as a
shame/honour society supplies the background for the shame/glory contrast in 1 Cor
11:2-16.
6
Moxnes identifies the shame/glory category as: a) a head covering like that
of Romans before their gods in public devotion reduced his self-respect and shamed
his own person and b) this shames his head also in the sense of appearing to demean

2
J. M. Gundry-Volf, Gender and Creation in 1 Cor 11:2-16: A Study in Pauls Theological Method,
in J. Adna, S. J. Hafeman, and O. Hofius (eds.), Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift fr
P. Stuhlmacher (Gttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1997), 151-171. kland, (Women in their
Place, 178), argues that these verses confirm gender difference on a cosmological level through the
drawing of a hierarchy and a clear boundary between male and female.
3
Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 803. In 1 Cor 12:4-6, the one God, the one Lord, and the
one Spirit shows mutuality, oneness, and distinctiveness.
4
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 516. Garland agrees with Perriman who concludes: The point seems to be
that the behavior of the woman reflects upon the man who as her head is representative of her, the
prominent partner in the relationship, or that the womans status and value is summed up in the man.
A. C. Perrimann, The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of kefalh/ in 1 Cor 11:3 JTS 45 (1994), 602-
622, at 621.
5
M. D. Hooker, Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor 11:10 NTS 10 (1963-64), 410-
16, at 411.
6
Gundry-Volf, Gender and Creation in 1 Cor 11:2-16, 155. Wire (The Corinthian Women Prophets,
120 ) argues that Paul is not using glory to mean copy nor even splendour so much as honour
in contrast to shame. If a woman is the glory of a man, her presence reflects honor on him and also
makes the man vulnerable to shame through her.
270

Christ or God as his Lord and head.
7
It seems that Paul wants to avoid the
distractions in Christian worship from the attention to the self, which makes the
persons head a source of shame, as though he wants to focus on the Lord as the
central focus.
8
Martin proposes that Paul is anxious about veiling for two reasons:
order and sexuality; that veiling situates women in their proper position in the
ordered hierarchy of society, which also means that they are not intended to be
passive but must participate in their covering. He states three reasons as regarded by
Paul, for why women should be veiled: the society worries about their social
vulnerability; a womens unveiled head constitutes a bodily defect; female sexuality
and social order cannot be separated in veiling cultures.
9

Watson rightly argues that veiling is the symbol of womans authority to speak
rather than a symbol of division in the Christian congregation. It is agape and not
eros that must rule in the public sphere of the congregation and the veil is interposed
as the condition of womens speech and of mens listening to that speech.
10
For
Watson, the real subject of the passage is togetherness of man and woman in the
Lord, within the fellowship of agape.
11
In 1 Cor 11:7, Paul asserts that man is the

7
H. Moxnes, Honor, Shame and the Outside World in Pauls Letter to the Romans, in J. Neusner, et
al. (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988),
208.
8
Thiselton, First Epistle to the Corinthians, 828.
9
Martin, Corinthian Body, 245. He presents evidence in connection with physiology that the bodies of
women are weaker, more vulnerable than men to desire, danger and pollution, and all the more
dangerous to the churchs body (233). The veil therefore protected womens body from dangers posed
by external forces and protected the social body from dangers posed by the female body itself (248).
Martins attempt to present the different ideological expressions of body in the ancient times is
interesting. But the question remains unanswered as to what extent we can ascertain that Paul was
really influenced by the body ideology of the contemporary times. By contrast, Watson assumes that
the appropriate criterion for judging the texts is only through the reality of agape. He argues that if
agape is the beginning and the end of Christian faith and living, then it is agape that must provide the
final criteria for Christian reflection on sexuality and gender. Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender, ix.
10
Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender, 41. See also E. H. Pagels, Paul and Women: A Response to Recent
Discussion JAAR 42 (1974), 538-549; R. Scroggs, Paul and the Eschatological Women JAAR 41
(1972), 283-303, at 297-300.
11
I support the following arguments of Watson. i) Divine love is the basis of human love and the
Christian faith and living should be in accordance with it. (p.1); ii) In the new creation, eros is not at
the centre of the relationship of man and woman. The sense of eros is not negated but not seen as the
guiding factor in the Christian community. (p.68); iii) Respecting womanhood as belonging together
271

image and glory of God, the woman as the glory of man. Fee rightly asserts that
Pauls use of glory in relation to image and to the mutuality in v.12, means that the
existence of the one brings honour and praise to the other.
12
It is likely that Paul
assumes man and woman are the glory of one another.
Mutual interdependence between man and woman in the Lord shows the
character of relationality and mutuality in the new creation (v.11). There could be no
reciprocity or mutuality unless each was differentiated from the other. It is evident
that the custom, which Paul is referring to here, concerns gender distinctions in
public worship, and that Paul is addressing both men and women. He accepts the
status of men and women in Christian worship as both are given the right to pray and
prophesy without ignoring the gender distinctions. Judith Gundry-Volf in her
discussion of 11:1-16 identifies three points of reference, lenses, or maps in
Pauline dialogue as the order of creation, custom as propriety, and eschatology or the
gospel, on which she bases her arguments on honour and shame, and urges control
over the head and the relationship of mutuality, reciprocity, and gender
distinctiveness.
13

As Paul advises husband and wife in 1Cor 7:3, 4, he gives mutual authority
over each others body, where we see neither a hierarchical pattern nor the pattern of
equality, rather mutuality and reciprocity considering the will of the partner in the
marital relationship. It is striking to note that Paul addresses both husband and wife
urging them to give themselves over to each other in their marital commitment.
14

does not exclude difference. Belonging together acknowledges difference and difference as that of
belonging together. (p.3); iv) He opposes the strands of feminism which seems to be in the opposite
extreme of patriarchy, which either advocates or presupposes a self-definition apart from man (p.5).
See for more discussion Watson, Agape, Eros, Gender, 1-89.
12
Fee, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, 514.
13
Gundry-Volf, Gender and Creation in 1 Cor 11:2-16, 160, 162, 169.
14
Garland, 1 Corinthians, 259. I agree with Garland as he suggests, Paul does not frame this
relationship in terms of husbands rights and the wifes duties she is an equal partner neither can
claim to have authority over his or her body and disavow further sexual relationship with the marriage
272

The basis of this relationship is Christian love that uproots selfish desires and
upholds pleasing others and belonging togetherness. Paul wants love to be the basis
of mutual relationship in the family and in the community. Love doesnt divide
rather it unites all in mutual relationship and also it governs gender issues in the
community as a whole and the church and ministry in particular.
If one attempts to establish hierarchy in the man-woman relationship, there is
the danger of missing out what Christ has secured for humanity through the New
Creation (Gal 3:28). But on the other hand, if one intends to affirm an egalitarian
view, there is an apparent danger of pressing homogeneity that excludes difference.
A more viable way of reading the text should be with a view that combines sharing
in the benefits of Christs redemption by men and women and affirmation of
mutuality in gender relations.
Therefore 1 Cor 11:11, which highlights the interdependence of man and
woman in the Lord, serves as the hermeneutical key for understanding the text. I
consider this text as significant in defining gender relations in the Lord, with its
emphasis on the mutual relationship and interdependence of man and woman;
hierarchy in one direction is reversed by the hierarchy in the other direction, which
supports the Pauline ethos of mutuality in Romans 12-16.
7.5. Pauline Love Mutualism: A Challenge to Communitarian Ethics
The model of mutuality which Paul wants to highlight in the greetings to men
and women in the church seems to be the first practical step towards the fulfilment of
the exhortations to the Roman believers to practise love, welcome and honour to one
another (Rom 12-15).
15
The distinctive feature of the Pauline ethos of mutuality is

partner. (1 Corinthians, 259-261). See also P. B. Payne, Man and Woman, One in Christ: An
Exegetical and Theological Study of Pauls Letters (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2009), 107.
15
The theme of mutual encouragement is introduced by Paul in the beginning of Romans (1:11, 12):
mutually encouraged by faith which is in one another, both yours and mine.
273

that it is initiated by grace, mediated by love and sustained by the Spirit. It avoids
extremes of either an atomised individualistic approach or a blatant collectivism.
Rather it promotes a dialectics of person-in-community. An individual is an isolated
being, cut off from all external relationships and as such is an antithesis to authentic
human existence, whereas to be human is to be a person whose existence is
predicated within a web of relationships.
Paul makes it abundantly clear that the well being of a person potentially leads
to the well being of the community. Persons with different gifts can up-build the
community in the ethos of mutuality. In turn, this enhances the significance of the
giftedness of each in the context of mutual affirmation. The believers form a close
knit family, who are committed to solidarity and mutual care, and mutuality is rooted
in their belonging to Christ.
I call this model of mutuality Pauline love mutualism, since love has an
important role in leading to mutual relations, which is profound in Romans (12-16)
and has a constructive impact on the community. I have defined mutuality as
relationships of reciprocal care in the introductory chapter, and now I am able to
give a clearer as well as deeper dimension to the Pauline ethos of mutuality. Paul
urges on the Romans that their love should be genuine. He begins this ethos of
mutualism with the body metaphor (12:3, 4); tries to develop mutual relations (12:9-
13) by describing different aspects (outdo one another in honouring, hospitality) and
more clearly emphasizes how love mutualism works between two groups (the strong
and the weak). The uniqueness of Pauline mutuality is that there is a dynamism
involved by the perpetual reversal of positions. The notion of hierarchy is also
strange to this model as both parties would act in mutual interdependence. The
274

hierarchical model is replaced by a mutuality model, where members act in unity and
mutuality with no question of permanent inferiority or superiority.
Thus, Paul alters the static hierarchical model of antiquity to that of
equalization via a constant process of promoting the other. This dynamic is modelled
in the pattern of Christs service (cf. Rom 15:1-6) as the two groups come out as
mutually edified and mutually welcomed (the strong and the weak). The edification
passes on to others as a chain reaction, since each and every member of the
congregation is involved in this process in its total dimension.
Paul asks his recipients to practice this love mutualism between them, where
he introduces Phoebe and a number of people to be greeted (Rom 16:1-16). He points
to some people, whom he knows well and whom he thinks special with regard to him
and the Roman church. Greeting cannot be done without honouring and the
honouring is expected to move in both directions as pendulum of a clock oscillates.
Love cannot do wrong to a neighbour but love is the fulfilment of the law (Rom
13:10). Mutualism can be negative or positive -- negative in a sense of judging one
another and positive in a sense of welcoming without considering the status -- the
strong and the weak. In order to sustain good relationships, one should not think
highly of himself and not be of haughty mind (Rom 12:3, 16b).
The attitude of the person who exercises love mutualism should be as if one is
serving the Lord (12:11c) and serving Christ (14:18); douleu/w means enslaved or
serving as a slave. Every believer is enslaved to Christ in order to serve others with
an attitude of serving Christ. That means, one who exercises love mutualism fulfils
the law and serves Christ: A serves under B; B serves under A.
Divine initiative and grace is involved in love mutualism since grace is
bestowed on humans to act in mutuality, which brings glorification to God at the
275

end.
16
Humans are participating with the divine, in the transformative power of
Christ to bring glory and honour to God, the Father. This is a challenge to
communitarian ethics as it requires divine-human participation and it acts in a way to
challenge negative with positive reciprocity. This helps to honour the least
honourable in the community and uplift them to the main strata, irrespective of race,
colour, sex and status.
In sum, the leadership of women in the church is placed within the structures of
mutuality in Romans. Mutuality is the model of relationship Paul wants to urge on
Roman Christians and the ethical obligations are guided by the dynamic relationships
of love mutualism. Love mutualism works as mutual service to the other that works
within the hierarchies by continually reversing them so that the superiority of x to y
is continually subverted by the superiority of y to x.
There is clearly scope for further research along these lines, such as the place
of grace in love mutualism, and its transformative power in mutual service. Further
analysis is needed of the reception of grace in serving Christ as his bond slave, and
the manifestation of grace in serving a brother/sister as a bond slave on the mode of
working together of self emptying, and the empowering function of grace in
believers.

16
See for more discussion, Harrison, Pauls Language of Grace in its Greco-Roman Context, 211-
223; J. M. G. Barclay, Grace within and Beyond Reason: Philo and Paul in Dialogue, in P.
Middleton, A. Paddison and K. Wenell (eds.), Paul, Grace and Freedom: Essays in Honour of J. K.
Riches (London, T& T Clark, 2009), 9-21.
276

Bibliography

Aasgaard, R. My Beloved Brothers and Sisters!: Christian Siblingship in Paul.
JSNTSup 265; London: T. & T. Clark, 2004.

Achtemeier, P. J. Romans: Interpretation. A Bible Commentary for Teaching and
Preaching. Atlanta: John Knox Press, 1985.

Althaus, P. An die Rmer bersetzt und erklrt. NTD 6; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1966.

Arichea, D. C. Who was Phoebe? Translating Diakonos in Romans 16:1, BT 39
(1988), 401-409.

Arlandson, J. M. Women, Class, and Society in Early Christianity: Models from
Luke-Acts. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1997.

Ascough, Richard S. Voluntary Associations and the Formation of Pauline Christian
Communities: Overcoming the Objections. In Andreas Gutsfeld und
Dietrich-Alex Koch (eds.). Vereine, Synagogen und Gemeinden im
kaiserzeitlichen Kleinasien. Studies and Texts in Antiquity and Christianity
25; Tbingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006, 149-183.

Badiou, Alain. Saint Paul: The Foundation of Universalism. Stanford: Stanford
University, 2003.

Banks, R. Pauls Idea of Community: The House Churches in their Historic Setting.
Exeter: Paternoster, 1980.

Barclay, J. M. G. Do we undermine the Law?: A Study of Romans 14:1-15:6. In J.
D. G. Dunn (ed.). Paul and the Mosaic Law. Tbingen: Mohr, 1996, 287-308.

_________. Is it Good News that God is Impartial?: A Response to Robert Jewett,
Romans: A Commentary, JSNT 31 (2008), 89-111.

___________. Neither Jew Nor Greek: Multiculturalism and the New Perspective on
Paul. In M. G. Brett (ed.). Ethnicity and the Bible. Leiden: Brill, 1996, 197-
214.

________. Grace within and Beyond Reason: Philo and Paul in Dialogue. In P.
Middleton, A. Paddison and K. Wenell (eds.). Paul, Grace and Freedom:
Essays in Honour of J. K. Riches. London, T& T Clark, 2009, 9-21.

Barnett, P. W. Apostle, DPL, 45-51.

Barrett, C. K. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. London: Adam &Clark, 1968.

__________. The Signs of an Apostle. London: Epworth, 1970.

277

__________. A Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. London: A & C Black,
1991.

Bartsch, H.-W. Die antisemitischen Gegner des Paulus im Rmerbrief. In P. W.
Eckert, N. P. Levinson, and M. Sthr (eds.). Anti judaismus im Neuen
Testament? Abhandlungen zum Christlich-jdischen Dialog. Munich: Kaiser,
1967, 33-34.

Bassler, J. M. Phoebe. In C. Meyers (ed.). Women in Scripture. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2000, 134-135.

__________.Prisca/Priscilla. In C. Meyers (ed.). Women in Scripture. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Bauckham, R. The Gospel Women: Studies of the Named Women in the Gospels.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2002.

Bauer, W., W. F. Arndt, F. W. Gingrich & F. W. Danker. Greek-English Lexicon of
the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature. 3
rd
(ed.) London:
University of Chicago, 2000.

Bauman, R. A. Women and Politics in Ancient Rome. London: Routledge, 1992.

Beard, M. The Sexual Status in the Roman Republic, JRS 70 (1980), 12-27.

Belleville, L. L. 0Iouniane0pi/shmoi e0n toi~v a0posto/loiv: A Re-examination of
Romans 16:7 in Light of Primary Source Materials, NTS 51 (2005), 231-
249.

__________ Continuity or Discontinuity: A Fresh look at 1 Corinthians in the Light
of First Century Epistolary Forms and Conventions, EvQ 59 (1987), 15-37.

Benko, S. Pagan Rome and the Early Christians. Bloomington: Indiana University,
1969.

Bertram, B. & H. Seesemann, pate/w, ktl., TDNT 5 (1967), 544.

Best, E. Bishops and Deacons: Phil 1:1, SE 4 (1968), 371-376.

_________. One Body in Christ: A Study of the Relationship of the Church to Christ
in the Epistles of the Apostle Paul. London: SPCK, 1955.

Betz, H. D. Apostle. ABD 1, 309-311.

Beyer, H. W. diakone/w, diakoni/a, dia/konov, TDNT 2 (1964), 81-93.

Bieringer, R. Women and Leadership in Romans 16: The Leading Roles of Phoebe,
Prisca, and Junia in Early Christianity: Part I, East Asian Pastoral Review 44
(2007), 221-237.

278

Bjerkelund, Carl J. Parakalo. Form, Function und Sinn der parakalo-Stze in den
paulinischen Briefen. Bibliotheca Theologica Norvegica 1; Oslo, 1967.

Black, M. Romans. 2
nd
ed. NCBC; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989.

Boatwright, M. T. Plancia Magna of Perge: Womens Roles and Status in Roman
Asia Minor. In S. B. Pomeroy (ed.). Womens History and Ancient History.
London: The University of North Carolina Press, 1991, 249-272.

Bonhoeffer, D. Christology. Eng. Trans., London: SCM, 1978.

_________. The Communion of the Saints: A Dogmatic Inquiry into the Sociology of
the Church. Eng. Trans., New York: Harper & Row, 1963.

_________. Ethics. New York: Macmillan, 1965.

Bornkamm, G. The Letter to the Romans as Pauls Last Will and Testament. In K.
P. Donfried (ed.). The Romans Debate. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, 16-28.

Branick, V. The House Church in the Writings of Paul. Wilmington: Michael
Glazier, 1989.

Brooten, B. J. Women Leaders in the Ancient Synagogue: Inscriptional Evidence and
Background Issues. BJS 36; California: Scholars, 1982.

Bruyne, D. de. Les deux derniers chapitres de la lettre aux Romains RBen 25
(1908), 423-430.

Burchard, C. Joseph and Aseneth. In J. H. Charlesworth (ed.). The Old Testament
Pseudepigrapha 2. London: Longman and Todd, 1985, 177-248.

Burer, M. H. and D. B. Wallace. Was Junia Really an Apostle? A Re-Examination
of Rom 16:7, NTS 47 (2001), 76-91.

Byrne, B. Romans. Sacra Pagina Series 6. Collegeville: Liturgical, 1996.

Calvin, J. The First Epistle of Paul the Apostle to the Corinthians. Edinburgh:
Oliver& Boyd, 1960.

__________. Commentaries on the Epistle of Paul to the Romans. J. Owen (trans.).
Vol XIX; Grand Rapids: Baker House, 1993.

Cameron, A. Neither Male nor Female, Greece and Rome 27 (1980), 60-68.

Campbell, J. C. Phoebe: Patron and Emissary. Pauls Social Network: Brothers and
Sisters in Faith; Minnesota: Liturgical, 2009.

Campbell, W. S. Paul and the Creation of Christian Identity. London: T& T Clark,
2006.

279

Cervin, R. S. A Note regarding the name Junias in Romans 16:7, NTS 40 (1994),
464-470.

Chapple, A. L. Local Leadership in the Pauline Churches: Theological and Social
Factors in its Development. A Study based on 1 Thessalonians, 1 Corinthians
and Philippians. PhD Dissertation. University of Durham, 1984, 398-349.

Chow, J. K. Patronage and Power: A Study of Social Networks in Corinth. JSNTSup
75; Sheffield: JSOT, 1992.

Clarke, A. D. Secular and Christian Leadership in Corinth: A Socio-Historical &
Exegetical Study of 1 Cor 1-6. New York: Brill, 1993.

_________. Serve the Community of the Church: Christians as Leaders and
Ministers. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

________. Jew and Greek, Slave and Free, Male and Female: Pauls Theology of
Ethnic, Racial and Gender Inclusiveness of Romans 16. In Peter Oakes (ed.).
Rome in the Bible and the Early Church. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic,
2002, 103-125.

________. Equality or Mutuality? Pauls Use of Brother Language. In P. J.
Williams, et.al. (eds.). The New Testament in Its First Century Setting:
Essays on Context and Background in honour of B. W. Winter. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 2004, 151-164.

Clemente, Guido. II Patronato Nei Collegis DellImpero Romano, Studi classici e
orientali 21 (1972), 142-229.

Coffee, D. M. The Function of Homeric Simile, AJP 78 (1957), 113-32.

Cohen, S. J. D. Women in the Synagogues of Antiquity, Conservative Judaism 34
(1980), 23-29.

Cohick, L. Y. Women in the World of the Earliest Christians: Illuminating Ancient
Ways of Life. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Academic, 2009.

Collins, M. S. Money, Sex and Power: An examination of the Role of Women as
Patrons of the Ancient Synagogues. In P. J. Hass (ed.). Recovering the Role
of Women: Power and Authority in Rabbinic Jewish Society. Atlanta:
Scholars Press, 1992, 7-22.

Collins, J. N. Diakonia: Re-interpreting the Ancient Sources. Oxford: Oxford
University, 1990.

Collins, R. F. First Corinthians. Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1999.

Corssen, P. Zur berlieferungsgeschichte des Rmerbriefes ZNW 10 (1909), 1-45.

280

Cotter, W. Womens Authority Roles in Pauls Churches: Countercultural or
Conventional?, NovT 36 (1994), 350-372.

Cranfield, C. E. B. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans. 2 Vols. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1978.

Croft, S. Text Messages: The Ministry of Women and Romans 16. Anvil 21 (2004),
87-94.

Dautzenberg, G. Zur Stellung der Frauen in der paulinischen Gemeinden. In Die
Frau im Urchristentum. QD 95; Freiburg: Herder, 1983, 182-224.

Delling. G. a0rxhgo/v, TDNT 1, 487-88.

Diessmann, A. Light from the Ancient East. L. R. M. Strachen (trans.). London:
Hodder & Stoughton, 1910.

Dodd, C. H. The Epistle of Paul to the Romans. London: Collins, 1932.

Donfried, K. P. A Short Note on Romans 16. In K. P. Donfreid (ed.). The Romans
Debate, Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, 44-52.

Doty, W. G. Letters in Primitive Christianity. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1973.

Dunn, J. D. G. Romans 9-16. WBC 2; Texas: Word Books, 1988.

________. Romans DPL, 838-846.

________. The Epistle to the Colossians and to Philemon: A Commentary on the
Greek Text. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

________. Theology of Paul the Apostle. London: T& T Clark, 2003.

Edgar, C. C. Annales du Service des Antiquits de 1 Egypte 22 (1922), 13.

Ehrensperger, K. That We may be Mutually Encourged: Feminism and the New
Perspective in Pauline Studies. London: T& T Clark, 2004.

Ellis, E. E. Paul and His Co-workers. DPL, 183-189.

_________. Paul and His Co-workers, NTS 17 (1977), 437-452.

Engberg-Pedersen, T. The Relationship with Others: Similarities and Differences
between Paul and the Stoicis, ZNW 96 (2005), 35-60.

________. Paul and the Stoics. Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 2000.

Epp, E. J. Junia: The First Woman Apostle. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2005.

281

Esler, P. F. Conflict and Identity in Romans: The Social Setting of Pauls Letter.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

__________. Paul and Stoicism: Romans 12 as a Test Case, NTS 50 (2004), 106-124.

Exler, F. X. J. The Form of the Ancient Greek Letter: A Study in Greek
Epistolography. Washington: Catholic University of America, 1923, 73-77.

Fbrega, V. War Junia[s], der hervorragende Apostel [Rm. 16, 7], eine Frau?, JAC
27/28 [1984/85], 47-64.

Fee, G. D. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1987.

_________. Pauls Letter to the Philippians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Fiorenza, E. S. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction of
Christian Origins. London: SCM, 1995.

_________.Missionaries, Apostles, Co-workers: Romans 16 and the Reconstruction
of Womens Early Christian History, WW 6 (1986), 420-433.

__________. Discipleship of Equals: A Critical Feminist Ekklesia-logy of liberation.
New York: Cross Road, 1993.

Fitzmyer, J. A. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary. AB;
New York: Doubleday, 1992.

__________. Paul and His Theology. New Jersey: Prentice Hall, 1989.

__________. Some Notes on Aramaic Epistolography, JBL 93 (1974), 201-225.

Francis, F. O. The form and function of the Opening and Closing Paragraphs of
James and 1 John, ZNW 61 (1970), 110-26.

Friedrich, G. (ed.) pra~gma, TDNT 6, 638-40.

Funk, W. Language, Hermeneutic, and Word of God: The Problem of Language in
the New Testament and Contemporary Theology. New York: Harper & Row,
1966.

Furnish, V.P. The Love Command in the New Testament. London: SCM, 1973.

Gamble, H. The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and
Literary Criticism. Studies and Documents 42; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans,
1977.

Garland, D. E. 1 Corinthians. BECNT; Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2003.

282

Garland, R. Priests and Power in Classical Athens. In M. Beard and J. North (eds.).
Pagan Priests: Religion and Power in the Ancient World. London:
Duckworth, 1990, 73-91.

Gaston, L. Faith in Romans 12 in the Light of the Common Life of the Roman
Church. In J. V. Hills (ed.), Common Life in the Early Church: Essays
Honoring Graydon F. Snyder. Harrisburg: Trinity Press International, 1998,
258- 264.

Gehring, R. W. House Church and Mission: The Importance of Household
Structures in Early Christianity. Peabody: Hendrickson, 2004.

Georgi, D. The Opponents of Paul in Second Corinthians. SNTW; Edinburgh: T& T
Clark, 1987.

Gillman, F. M. Women Who Knew Paul. Zacchaeus Studies: New Testament.
Collegeville: Liturgical Press, 1992.

Glad, C. E. Paul and Philodemus: Adaptability in Epicurean and Early Christian
Psychagogy. NovTSup 81; New York: Brill, 1995.

Godet, F.L. First Epistle to the Corinthians. A. Cusin (trans.). Vol. 2 CFTL, New
Series XXX. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1898.

_________. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. Edinburgh: T&T
Clark, 1880.

Goodspeed, E. J. Phoebes Letter of Introduction, HTR 44 (1951), 56-57.

Goodenough, E. Jewish Symbols in the Greco-Roman Period. Bollingen Series 37;
13 vols. Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1953-1968.

Grey, M. Redeeming the Dream: Feminism Redemption and Christian Tradition.
London: SPCK, 1989.

Grubbs, J. E. Women and the Law in the Roman Empire: A Sourcebook on Marriage,
Divorce and Widowhood. London: Routledge, 2002.

Gundry-Volf, J. M. Gender and Creation in 1 Cor 11:2-16: A Study in Pauls
Theological Method. In J. Adna, S. J. Hafeman, and O. Hofius (eds.).
Evangelium, Schriftauslegung, Kirche: Festschrift fr P. Stuhlmacher.
Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &Ruprecht, 1997, 151-171.

Haacker, K. plhsi/on, EDNT 3 (1993), 113.

Hannaford, R. The Representative and Relational Nature of Ministry and The
Renewal of the Diaconate. In The Ministry of Deacon: Ecclesiological
Explorations. Uppsala: NEC, 2000.

283

Harland, P. A. Associations, Synagogues and Congregations: Claiming a place in
Ancient Mediterranean Society. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2003.

_________.Familial Dimensions of Group Identity (II): Mothers and Fathers in
Associations and Synagogues of the Greek world, JSJ 38 (2007) 57-79.

Harnack, A. The Mission and Expansion of Christianity in the First Three Centuries.
J. Moffatt (trans.). New York: Harper, 1962[1908].

Harrison, J. H. Pauls Language of Grace in its Greco-Roman Context. Tbingen:
Mohr Siebeck, 2003.

Hentschel, A. Diakonia im Neuen Testament: Studien Zur Semantik unter
besonderer Bercksichtigung der Rolle von Frauen. Tbingen: Mohr
Siebeck, 2007.

Heyward, C. The Redemption of God: The Theology of Mutual Relation.
Washington, D.C: University Press of America, 1982.

Hock, R. F. Pauls Tent-making and the Problem of His Social Class, JBL 97
(1978), 555-74.

Hodge, C. Commentary on the Epistle to the Romans. New York: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1983.

Holmberg, B. Paul and Power: The Structure of Authority in the primitive church as
reflected in the Pauline Epistles. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1980.

Hooker, M. D. Authority on Her Head: An Examination of 1 Cor 11:10, NTS 10
(1963-64), 410-16.

Horrell, D. G. Solidarity and Difference: A Contemporary Reading of Pauls Ethics.
London: T& T Clark, 2005.

________. The Social Ethos of the Corinthian Correspondence: Interest and
Ideology from 1 Corinthians to 1 Clement. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1996.

Horsley, G. H. R. Giving Thanks to Artemis, NewDocs 4 (1987), 127-129.

_________. Maria the dia/konov, NewDocs 2 (1982), 193-95.

Horst, J. me/lov TDNT 4 (1967), 556, 562.

Hort, F. J. A. On the end of the Epistle of Romans, Journal of Philology 3 (1871),
51-80.

Hurtado, L.W. The Doxology at the End of Romans. In E. P. Epp and G. D. Fee
(eds.). New Testament Textual Criticism: Its Significance for Exegesis. Essays
in Honour of Bruce M. Metzger. Oxford: Clarendon, 1981, 185-99.
284

Hutter, D. Did Paul call Andronicus an Apsotle in Romans 16:7? JETS (2009),
747-778.

Jewett, R. Paul, Phoebe, and Spanish Mission. In J. Neusner, et al. (eds.). The
Social World of Formative Christianity and Judaism: Essays in Tribute to
Howard Clark Kee. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988, 144-64.

________. Romans. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2007.

_________ Pauls Anthropological Terms: A Study of Their Use in Conflict
Situations. AGJU10; Leiden: Brill, 1971.

_________. Christian Tolerance: Pauls Message to the Modern Church.
Philadelphia: Westminster, 1982.

___________. Honour and Shame in the Argument of Romans. In A. Brown, G.F.
Snyder, and V. Wiles (eds.). Putting Body and Soul Together: Essays in
Honour of Robin Scroggs. Valley Forge: Trinity Press International, 1997,
257-72.

Judge, E. A. Cultural Conformity and Innovation in Paul: Some Clues from
Contemporary Documents, TynBul 35 (1984), 3-24.

Karris, R. J. Romans 14:1-15:13 and the occasion of Romans. In K. P. Donfried,
(ed.). Romans Debate, (revised and expanded edition). Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1991, 65-84.

Ksemann, E. Commentary on Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1980.

__________. The Theological Problem Presented by the Motif of the Body of
Christ. In Perspectives on Paul. London: SCM, 1971, 102-21.

Kearsley, R. A. Women in the Public East: Iunia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora and
Phoebe, Benefactress of Paul, TynBul 50 (1999), 189-21.

Keck, L. E. Romans. Nashville: Abingdon, 2005.

Keener, C. S. Paul, Women and Wives: Marriage and Womens Ministry in the
Letters of Paul. Massachusetts: Hendrickson, 1992.

Keyes, C. W. The Greek Letter of Introduction, AJP 56 (1935), 28-44.

Keil, J. Inschriftenin Forschungen in Ephesos III (Vienna, 1923), 94-95.

Kim, C-H. The Form and Structure of the Familiar Greek Letter of
Recommendation. SBLDS 4; Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1972.

285

Kim, Y. S. Christs Body in Corinth: The Politics of a Metaphor. Minneapolis:
Fortress Press, 2008.

Kittel, G. sunaixmalw/tov, TDNT 1, 196-197.

Klassen, W. Kiss, ABD 4, 89-92.

________. The Sacred Kiss in the New Testament: An Example of Social
Boundary Lines, NTS 39 (1993), 122-135.

________. Agape, ABD 1, 381-396.

Klauck,

H. J. Hausgemeinde und Hauskirche im frhen Christendum. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk, 1981.

_________. Herrenmahl und Hellenistischer Kult. Eine religionsgeschichtliche
Untersuchung zum ersten Korintherbrief. Mnster: Aschendorff, 1982, 281-
83.

Kloppenborg, J. S. Collegia and Thiasoi: Issues in function, taxonomy and
membership. In J. S. Kloppenborg and S. G. Wilson (eds.). Voluntary
Associations in the Graeco-Roman World. London: Routledge, 1996, 16-30.

Koenig, J. New Testament Hospitality: Partnership with Strangers as Promise and
Mission. Philadelphia: Fortress, 1985.

Koester, H. Ephesos in Early Christian Literature. In H. Koester (ed.). Ephesos:
Metropolis of Asia. Pennsylvania: Trinity Press, 1995, 119-140.

Koskenniemi, H. Studien zur Idee und Phraseologie des griechischen Briefes bis
400 n. Chr. Helsinki: Akateeminen Kirjakauppa, 1956.

Kraemer, R. S. Her Share of the Blessings: Womens Religions among Pagans, Jews,
and Christians in the Greco-Roman World. Oxford: Oxford University Press,
1992.

Krauss, S. Synagogale Altertmer. Berlin: Benjamin Harz, 1922.

Kmmel, W. G. Introduction to the New Testament. Nashville: Abingdon, 1975.

Kurek-Chomycz, D. A. Is there an Anti-Priscan Tendency in the Manuscripts?
Some Textual Problems with Prisca and Aquila, JBL 125 (2006), 107-128.

La Piana, G. Foreign Groups at Rome, HTR 20 (1927), 183-403.

Lagrange, M. -J. Saint Paul: ptre aux Romains. tudes Bibliques; Paris: Gabalda,
1931.

Lampe, P. Persis, ABD 5, 244.

286

________. Prisca, ABD 5, 467-468.

_______. Iunia/Iunias: Sklavenherkunft im Kreise der vorpaulinischen Apostel
(Rm 16 7), ZNW 76 (1985), 132-134.

__________. Julia, ABD 3, 1125.

________. From Paul to Valentinus: Christians at Rome in the First Two Centuries.
Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2003.

________.The Roman Christians of Romans 16. In K. P. Donfried, (ed.). The
Romans Debate, (revised and expanded edition). Peabody: Hendrickson,
1991, 216-230.

Leenhardt, F. -J. The Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans: A Commentary. London:
Lutterworth, 1961.

Lefkowitz, M. R. and M. B. Kant, Womens Life in Greece and Rome: A Source
Book in Translation. London: Duckworth, 1992.

Lenski, R. C. H. The Interpretation of St. Pauls Epistle to the Romans. Minneapolis:
Augsburg, 1961.

Liddell, H. G., R. Scott, H. S. Jones, A Greek-English Lexicon 9
th
ed. with revised
supplement. Oxford, 1996.

Lietzmann, H. Kleine Schriften, Kurt Aland (ed.). 3 Vols.; Untersuchungen zur
Geschichte der Altchristlichen Literatur 67,68, 74. Berlin: Akademie-Verlag,
1958-1962.

Lightfoot, J. B. St. Pauls Epistle to the Philippians. London: Macmillan, 1894.

Lightfoot, J. B. (ed.). Biblical Essays. New York: Macmillan, 1904.

Llewelyn, S. R. The Christian Letters of Recommendation, NewDocs 8,170.

__________. Changing the Legal Jurisdiction, NewDocs 9, 45-53.

Lohfink, G. Weibliche Diakone im Neuen Testament. In J. Blank & et.al. (eds.) Die
Frau Im Urchristentum. QD 95; Freiburg: Herder, 1983, 320-338.

Lowe, S. D. Rethinking the Female Status/ Function Question: The Jew/Gentile
Relationship as Paradigm, JETS 34 (1991), 59-75.

Luck, U. B. swfrone/w ktl., TDNT 7, 1098-1100.

Luther, M. Early Theological Works. J. Atkinson, (trans. & ed.). London: SCM,
1962.

287

MacMullen, R. Women in Public in the Roman Empire, Historia 29 (1980), 208-
218.

__________. Roman Social Relations. London: Yale University Press, 1974.

Malina, B. The New Testament World: Insights from Cultural Anthropology.
Louisville: John Knox Press, 2001.

Manson, T. W. St. Pauls letter to the Romans - and Others. In K. P. Donfried (ed.).
The Romans Debate, (revised and expanded edition). Peabody: Hendrickson,
1991, 3-15.

__________. St. Pauls Letter to the Romans and Others. Matthew Black (ed.).
In Studies in the Gospels and Epistles. Manchester, 1962), 225-241.

Marshall, I. H. and D. A. Hagner, 1 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000.

Marshall, I. H. & P. H. Towner, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on The
Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1999.

Martin, D. B. The Corinthian Body. New Haven: Yale University, 1995.

________. Slavery as Salvation: The Metaphor of Slavery in Pauline Christianity.
London: Yale University Press, 1990.

________. Tongues of Angels and Other Status Indicators, JAAR 59 (1991), 547-
89.

McDonald, J. I. H. Was Romans XVI a separate letter?, NTS 16 (1969-70), 369-72.

McLean, B. H. An Introduction of Greek Epigraphy of the Hellenistic and Roman
Periods from Alexander the Great down to the Reign of Constantine (323
B.C.- A.D. 337). Michigan: The University of Michigan Press, 2002.

Meeks, W. A. The First Urban Christians; The Social World of the Apostle Paul.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1983.

_________ .Judgement and the Brother: Romans 14:1- 15:13. In G. F. Hawthorne
with O. Betz (eds.). Tradition and Interpretation in the New Testament:
Essays in Honor of E. Earle Ellis for his 60th birthday. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans, 1987, 290-300.

Meggitt, J. Paul, Poverty and Survival. SNTW; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1998.

Metzger, B. M. A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament. London:
Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/UBS,
2
1994.

Meyer, H. A. W. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistles to the
Corinthians: First Epistle. Vol. 1; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1892.
288

__________. Critical and Exegetical Handbook to the Epistle to the Romans. J. C.
Moore (trans.). Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1876.

Michel, O. oi0kodome/w ktl., TDNT 5 (1967), 140-42.

________. Der Brief an die Rmer. KEK, 4; Gttingen: Vandenhoeck& Ruprecht,
1978.

Michelis, W. suggenh/v, sugge/neia, TDNT 7 (1971), 742.

Minear, P. S. The Obedience of Faith; The Purposes of Paul in the Epistle to the
Romans. SBT 2/19; London: SCM, 1971.

Mitchell, M. M. Paul and the Rhetoric of Reconciliation: An Exegetical Investigation
of the Language and Composition of 1 Corinthians. Tbingen: Mohr, 1991.

Moffatt, J. Introduction to the Literature of the New Testament. New York: Charles
Scribners Sons,
3
1918.

Moo, D. J. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1996.

Morris, L. The Epistle to the Romans. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1988.

Moulton, J. H. and G. Milligan. The Vocabulary of the Greek Testament: Illustrated
from the Papyri and other Non-literary sources. London: Hodder and
Stoughton, 1914-1929.

Moulton, W. F. & G. S. Geden. Concordance to the Greek New Testament. I. H.
Marshall (ed.). Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 2002.

Moxnes, H. Honour and Righteousness, JSNT 32 (1988), 61-77.

_________. The Quest for Honour and the Unity of the Community in Romans 12
and in the Orations of Dio Chrysostom. In T. Engberg-Pederson (ed.). Paul
in His Hellenistic Context. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1994, 203-30.

_________. Honor, Shame and the Outside World in Pauls Letter to the Romans,
in J. Neusner, et al. (eds.), The Social World of Formative Christianity and
Judaism (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1988), 208.

Mullins, T. Y. Greeting as a New Testament Form, JBL 87 (1968), 418-426.

Murphy-OConnor, J. Prisca and Aquila: Travelling Tentmakers and Church
Builders, BRev 8 (1992), 40-51.

Murray, J. The Epistle to the Romans. Vol. 2. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1965.

Ng, E.Y. Phoebe as Prostatis, TJ 25 (2004), 3-13.
289

Noy, D. Jewish Inscriptions of Western Europe, 2 Vols. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press, 1993.

Nygren, A. Commentary on Romans. C. C. Rasmuussen (trans). Philadelphia:

Oakes, P. Reading Romans in Pompeii: Pauls Letter at Ground Level. Minneapolis:

OBrien, P.T. The Epistle to the Philippians: A Commentary on the Greek Text.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1991.

_________. Letters, Letter Forms, DPL, 550-553.

kland, J. Women in their Place: Paul and the Corinthian Discourse of Gender and
Sanctuary Space. JSNTSup 269; London: T& T Clark, 2004.

Ollrog, WH. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter. WMANT 50; Neurkirchen:
Neukirchener, 1979.

Omanson, R. L Whos who in Romans 16? Identifying Men and Women among the
People Paul sent greetings to, BT 49 (1998), 430-436.

Osiek, C. and D. L. Balch, Families in the New Testament World: Households and
House churches. Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 1997.

Osiek, C. & M. Y. MacDonald, A Womans Place: House Churches in Earliest
Chrisitanity. Minneapolis: Fortress, 2006.

Osiek, C. Diakonos and Prostatis: Womens Patronage in Early Christianity, HTS
61 (2005), 347-370.

Oster, R. E. Congregations of the Gentiles (Rom 16:4): A Culture-Based
Ecclesiology in the Letters of Paul, RestorQuart 40 (1998), 39-52.

Pagels, E. H. Paul and Women: A Response to Recent Discussion, JAAR 42
(1974), 538-549.

Pallas, D. I., S. Charitonidis, and J. Venencie, Inscriptions lyciennes trouves
Solmos prs de Corinthe, Bulletin de Correspondance hllenique 83
(1959), 496-508.

Payne, P. B. Man and Woman, One in Christ: An Exegetical and Theological Study
of Pauls Letters. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2009.

Pederson, S. Agape - der eschatologische Hauptbegriff bei Paulus. In S. Pederson
(ed.). Die Paulinische Literatur und Theologie. Anlsslich der 50 jhringen
Grndungs-Feier der Universitt Aarhus. Gttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht, 1980, 159-86.

290

Peristiany, J. G. Honour and Shame: The Values of Mediterranean Society. London:
Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1965.

Perrimann, A. C. The Head of a Woman: The Meaning of kefalh/ in 1 Cor 11:3,
JTS 45 (1994), 602-622.

Peterson, J. M. House-Churches in Rome, VC 23 (1969), 264-72.

Philsy, Sr. Diakonia of Women in the New Testament, IJT 32 (1983), 110-118.

Piper, J. I. and W. Grudem, (eds.). Recovering Biblical Manhood and Womanhood:
A Response to Evangelical Feminism. Wheaton, Ill: Crossway, 1991.

Piper, John. Love your Enemies: Jesus Love Command in the Synoptic Gospels and
the Early Christian Paraenesis. SNTSMS 38; Cambridge: Cambridge

Plisch, U.-K. Die Apostelin Junia: Das Exegetische Problem in Rm 16:7 im Licht
von NestleAland and der Sahidischen berlieferung, NTS 42 (1996), 477-
478.

Poland, F. Geschichte des griechischen Vereinswesens. Leipzig: Teubner, 1909.

Reasoner, M. The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1-15:13 in Context. SNTSMS
103; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1999.

Reid, M. L. Pauls Rhetoric of Mutuality: A Rhetorical Reading of Romans. In E.
H. Lovering (ed.), SBL Papers. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1995, 117-139.

Reike, B. proi5sthmi, TDNT 6, 700-703.

Rengstorf, K. H. e0pi/shmov, TDNT 7 (1971), 267.

Reynolds J. M. and R. Tannenbaum. Jews and God Fearers at Aphrodisias: Greek
Inscriptions with Commentary. PCPSSV 12; Cambridge Philological Society,
1987.

Ridderbos, H. Paul: An Outline of His Theology. J.R. De Witt (trans.). London:
SPCK, 1977.

Riggenbach, E. Die Textgeschichte der Doxologie Rm. 16, 25-27 im
Zusammenhang mit den brigen, den Schluss des Rmerbriefs betreffenden,
textkritischen Fragen Neue Jahrbchen fr deutsche Theologie 1 (1892),
526-605.

Rives, J. Civic and Religious Life. In J. Bodel, (ed.). Epigraphic Evidence: Ancient
History from Inscriptions. London: Routledge, 2001, 118-136.

Robert, J. and L. Bulletin pigraphique, Revue der tudes grecques 69 (1956), 152-
53.
291

Robert, L. Inscriptiones de Chios du Ier sicle de notre re, tudes pigraphiques et
philologiques. Paris: Champion, 1938, 133-34.

Robertson, A. & A. Plummer, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the First
Epistle of Paul to the Corinthians. ICC; Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1914.

Roetzel, C. J. Judgment in the Community: A Study of the Relationship between
Eschatology and Ecclesiology in Paul. Leiden: Brill, 1972.

Roller, O. Das Formular der paulinischen Briefe; ein Beitrag zur Lehre vom antiken
Briefe. BWANT 4/6 (58); Sttutgart: Kohlhammer, 1933, 481-82.

Romaniuk, K. Was Phoebe in Romans 16,1 a Deaconess?, ZNW 81(1990), 132-34.

Saller, R. P. Personal Patronage under the Early Empire. Cambridge: Cambridge

Sampley, J. P. The Weak and the Strong: Pauls Careful and Crafty Rhetorical
Strategy in Romans 14:1-15:3. In L. M. White and O. L. Yarbrough (ed.).
The Social World of the First Christians: Essays in Honor of Wayne A.
Meeks. Minneapolis: Fortress, 1995, 40-52.

Sanday, W. and A. C. Headlam. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary to the Epistle
to the Romans. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1902.

Sanders, E. P. Jewish Law from Jesus to the Mishnah. London: SCM Press, 1990.

Schlatter, A. Romans: The Righteousness of God. Peabody: Hendrickson, 1995.

_________. Der Rmerbrief. HThKNT 6; Freiburg: Herder, 1977.

Schmidt, H. W. Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer. THKNT, 6; Berlin:
Evangelische Verlagsanstalt, 1963.

Schmithals, W. Der Rmerbrief: Ein Kommentar. Gtersloh: Mohn, 1988.

Schneider, J. timh/ ktl., TDNT 8 (1972), 169-80.

_________. o2neidov ktl., TDNT 5 (1967), 238.

Schotroff, L. Lydias Impatient Sisters: A Feminist Social History of Early
Christianity. Barbara and Martin Rumscheidt (trans). Louisville: John Knox
Press, 1995.

Schreiber, S. Arbeit mit der Gemeinde (Rom16:6, 12). Zur versunkenen Mglichkeit
der Gemeindeleitung durch Frauen, NTS 46 (2000), 204-226.

Schreiner, T. R. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 1998.
292

Schubert, P. Form and Function of the Pauline Thanksgivings. Berlin: A.Tpelmann,
1939.

Schulz, R. R. A Case for President Phoebe in Romans 16:2, LTJ 24 (1990), 124-
27.

________. Junia or Junias?, ExpT 98 (1987), 108-10.

Schumacher, R. Aquila und Priscilla, TGI 12 (1920), 89-99.

Schrer, E. History of the Jewish People in the Age of Jesus Christ. Geza Vermes,
Fergus Millar, Matthew Black and Pamela Vermes (rev. and ed.). 2 Vols.
Edinburgh: T& T Clark, 1973-1979.

Schweizer, E. sw~ma ktl., TDNT 7 (1971), 1041.

Scroggs, R. Paul and the Eschatological Women, JAAR 41 (1972), 283-303.

Segal, A. F. Paul the Convert: The Apostolate and Apostasy of Saul the Pharisee.
New Haven: Yale University Press, 1986.

Sevenster, J. N. Paul and Seneca. NovTSup 4; Leiden: Brill, 1961.

Sigountos J. G. & M. Shank, Public Roles for Women in the Pauline Church: A
Reappraisal of the Evidence, JETS 26 (1983), 283-295.

Silva, M. Philippians. Grand Rapids: Baker Academic, 2005.

Soards, M. L. 1 Corinthians. NIBC; Peabody: Hendrickson, 1999.

Sding, T. Das Liebesgebot bei Paulus: Die Mahnung zur Agape im Rahmen der
paulinischen Ethik. NTAbh 26; Mnster: Aschendorff, 1995.

Spicq, C. Agape dans le Nouveau Testament. Analyse des Textes, EBib 1, 2 Paris:
Gabalda, 1958-59.

Sthlin, G. a0sqene/w ktl., TDNT 1 (1964), 490-93.

__________. ska/ndalon, skandali/zw, TDNT 7, 339.

Stauffer, E. a0gapa/w, a0ga/ph, a0gaphto/v, TDNT 1, 21-55.

Stowers, S. J. Letter Writing in Greco-Roman Antiquity. Library of Early
Christianity, 265; Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1986.

_________. A Re-reading of Romans: Justice, Jew, and Gentiles. New Haven: Yale

293

Stowers, S. K. The Diatribe and Pauls Letter to the Romans. SBLDS 57; Chicago:
Scholars Press, 1981.

Stuhlmacher, P. The Theme of Romans. In K. P. Donfried, (ed.). The Romans
Debate, (revised and expanded edition). Peabody: Hendrickson, 1991, 333-
345.

__________. Pauls Letter to the Romans: A Commentary. S. J. Hafemann (trans.)
Westminster: John Knox, 1994.

Theissen, G. The Social Setting of Pauline Christianity: Essays on Corinth.
Edinburgh: T & T Clark, 1982.

Thiselton, A. C. The First Epistle to the Corinthians. Carlisle: Paternoster Press,
2000.

Thomas, W. D. Phoebe: A Helper of Many, ExpTim 95 (1984), 336-337.

Thorley, J. Junia, A Woman Apostle, NovT 38 (1996), 18-26.

Thorsteinsson, R. M. Paul and Roman Stoicism: Romans 12 and Contemporary
Stoic Ethics, JSNT 29 (2006), 139-161.

Thraede, K. Ursprnge und Formen des heiligen Kusses im frhen Christentum,
JAC 11/12 (1967-68), 124-180.

Tobin, T. H. Pauls Rhetoric in its Contexts: The Argument of Romans. Peabody:
Hendrickson, 2004.

Tomson, P. J. Paul and the Jewish Law: Halakha in the Letters of the Apostle to the
Gentiles. CRINT Vol. 1; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

Trebilco, P. R. Jewish Communities in Asia Minor. Cambridge: Cambridge

Tromp, J. (trans.). The Assumption of Moses: A Critical Edition with Commentary.
Leiden: Brill, 1993.

van der Horst, P. W. The Jews of Ancient Crete, JJS 39 (1988), 183-200.

Verner, D. C. The Household of God: The Social World of the Pastoral Epistles.
SBLDS 71; Chicago: Scholars Press, 1983.

von Harnack, A. kopia~n (Oi9 Kopiw~ntev) im frhchristlichen Sprachgebrauch,
ZNW 27 (1928), 1-10.

von Soden, H. F. a0delfo/v ktl., TDNT 1 ( 1964), 145.

294

Vouga, F. L Eptre aux Romains comme document ecclsiologique (Rom 12-15),
ETR 61 (1986), 489-91.

Waltzing, J. P. Etude historique sur les corporations professionnelles chez les
Romains depuis les origines jusqu la chute de lEmpire dOccident, vols.
4 ; Louvain: Georg Olms, 1970, 1:348-49.

Wannenwetsch, B. Members of One Another: Charis, Ministry and
Representation: A Politico-Ecclesial Reading of Romans 12. In C.
Bartholomew, et.al., A Royal Priesthood? A Use of the Bible Ethically and
Politically, A Dialogue with Oliver ODonovan. The Scripture and
Hermeneutics Series, Vol. 3; Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2002,
197-220.

Warnach, V. Agape. Die Liebe als Grundmotiv der neutestamentlichen Theologie.
Dsseldorf: Patmos, 1951.

Watson, F. Agape, Eros, Gender: Towards a Pauline Sexual Ethic. Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2000.

_________. The Two Roman Congregations Rom 14:1-15:13. In K. P. Donfried,
(ed.). The Romans Debate, (revised and expanded edition). Peabody:
Hendrickson, 1991, 203-215.

__________. Paul, Judaism and the Gentiles. SNTSMS 56; Cambridge: Cambridge

Wedderburn, A. J. M. The Reasons for Romans. Edinburgh: T&T Clark, 1988.

__________. Some Observations on Pauls use of the Phrases in Christ and with
Christ, JSNT 25 (1985), 83-97.

Weima, J. A. D. Neglected Endings: The Significance of the Pauline Letter Closings.
JSNTSup 101; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 1994.

Weiser, A. Der Rolle der Frau in der urchristlichen Mission. In G. Dautzenberg
(ed.). Die Frau im Urchristentum. QD 95; Freiburg: Herder, 1983, 158-81.

Whelan, C. F. Amica Pauli: The Role of Phoebe in the Early Church, JSNT 49
(1993), 67-85.

White, J. L. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

_________. Epistolary Formulas and Clichs in Greek Papyrus Letters. In SBL
Seminar Papers 2. Missoula, MT: Scholars, 1978, 289-319.

_________ .The Greek Documentary Letter Tradition: Third Century BCE to Third
Century CE, Semeia 22 (1981), 92-95.

295

__________.New Testament Epistolary Literature in the Framework of Ancient
Epistolography. Aufstieg und Niedergang der rmischen Welt, II, 25.2.
Berlin: de Gruyter, 1984, 1730-56.

_________. Light from Ancient Letters. Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1986.

__________. Saint Paul and the Apostolic Letter Tradition, CBQ 45 (1983), 433-
444.

Windisch, K. H. a0spa/zomai TDNT 1, 496-502.

Wilckens, U. u9pokri/nomai ktl,. TDNT 8, 559-71.

_________. Der Brief an die Rmer, Vol. 3. EKKNT, 6. Neukirchen-Vluyn:
Neukirchener Verlag, 1978-82.

Wilson, F. V. The Significance of the Early House Churches, JBL 58 (1939), 105-
112.

Wilson, W. T. Love without Pretense: Romans 12:9-11 and Hellenistic-Jewish
Wisdom Literature. Tbingen: Mohr, 1991.

Winter, B. W. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and
the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2003.

_________. Roman Law and Society in Romans 12-15. In P. Oakes (ed.). Rome
in the Bible and the Early Church. Carlisle: Paternoster Press, 2002, 67-102.

Wire, A. The Corinthian Women Prophets: A Reconstruction through Pauls
Rhetoric. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1990.

Witherington, B. Conflict and Community in Corinth: A Socio-Rhetorical
Commentary on 1 and 2 Corinthians. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995.

Yorke, G. L. O. R. The Church as the Body of Christ: A Re-examination. Lanham:
University Press of America, 1991.

Zahn, T. Der Brief des Paulus an die Rmer. Kommentar zum Neuen Testament 6;
Leipzig: Deichert, 1910.

Ziemann, F. De Epistularum Graecarum Formulis Sollemnibus Quaestiones
Selectae. Berlin: Haas, 1912.

Ziesler, J. Pauls Letter to the Romans. TPI; London: SCM, 1989.

Zmijewski, Josef. a0sqenh/v ktl. EDNT 1 (1990), 171.

Mathew Thesis 9.7.10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathew Thesis 9.7.10

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Mathew Thesis 9.7.10

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Durham E-Theses

Women in the Greetings of Rom 16:1-16: A Study of

You might also like