The Last Chapter of Romans: Greetings to Andronicus and Junia(s) (Romans 16:7)

“Greet Andronicus and Junia[s?], my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me” (Romans 16:7, ESV).

“Andronicus” [Ἀνδρόνικος], whose Greek name means “male victor” or “victor of men,”¹ was a Hellenistic Jew like Paul. Based on inscriptional evidence and his connection with the apostles, it is almost certain that he was a migrant from the east.² He is mentioned in the NT only here,³ coupled with the lone occurrence of the name that follows.

The main challenges of this text concern whether the adjoining name is the feminine “Junia”⁴ or the masculine “Junias,”⁵ and what is meant by the phrase, “of note among [ἐν] the apostles.” Are Andronicus and Junia(s) counted among the apostles as outstanding apostles themselves, or are they simply esteemed by the apostles?⁶ Any dogmatic assertion, scholarly or otherwise, that Junia(s) was a woman, a man, an apostle, or not an apostle, is an indicator of the asserter’s theological leanings.  

Male or Female?

Whether the accusative Ἰουνιαν is feminine or masculine depends on where the accent is placed. The acute accent over the iota makes this a female name (Ἰουνίαν), whereas the circumflex over the alpha makes it a male name (Ἰουνιᾶν). The interpretive and translational conundrum is the inconvenient reality that diacritical markings were not added to the Greek NT until the ninth century! There were no accents or breathing marks or punctuation in Paul’s original text, so the name in question, written in uncial script, would have simply been ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ. Paul could readily assume the original readership already knew this person, but for modern interpreters to make definitive claims about the name’s gender is presumptuous.⁷   

Percentagewise, inscriptional evidence from Rome favors the Latin female name Iunia (over 250 inscriptions), although the Greek Ἰουνία is rare,⁸ and no first-century Jewish woman is confirmed as having this name.⁹ The masculine Iunias is a contracted form of Iunianas; the former is practically unattested, while the latter appears in twenty-one Roman inscriptions.¹⁰  Can we be confident that the mere counting and comparing of Latin names outside the biblical record is decisive? What if ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ in Paul’s Greek text is not a Latin name at all but the Hellenized form of the Hebrew Yěḥunnī?¹¹ Moreover, the NT manuscript and versional evidence and patristic commentators, whether early or late, reflect little more than subjective guesses.¹² The fact of the matter is, “the data on whether ᾿Ιουνιαν is feminine or masculine are simply inadequate to make a decisive judgment.”¹³

If the female name is in view,¹⁴ Junia may have been Andronicus’s wife (note v. 3), or daughter (note v. 13), or sister (note v. 15). If the male name is in view, Junias could have been kin to Andronicus or simply his ministerial colleague.

Relation to the Apostles

What about the phrase, “of note among the apostles” [ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις]?¹⁵ The adj. ἐπίσημος, occurring only twice in the NT,¹⁶ has been rendered in English: (a) in the comparative sense, “prominent” (ISV, NRSV), “outstanding” (NASB, NIV); or (b) in the elative sense, “of note” (ASV, N/KJV, RSV), “noteworthy” (CSB), “notable” (WEB), “well known” (ESV, NET), “highly respected” (CEV, NLT). The preposition ἐν (“in”), if used of agency, can be rendered “by,” and its locative use with a plural object usually means “among.” 

Interpreters who favor the comparative sense often claim that Andronicus and Junia(s) are included in the apostolic circle as prominent apostles, even though nowhere else in the biblical record are these two named where the apostles are clearly identified and listed together.¹⁷ Are we to believe that Paul is ranking the apostles and placing Andronicus and Junia(s), who are never mentioned elsewhere, above all the others? And if the pair were in fact outstanding apostles, why would it have been necessary for Paul, “a called apostle,” to travel all the way to Rome to impart a spiritual gift to strengthen the Roman saints (1:1-11)?

In Galatians 2:6-9 Paul has outlined a threefold assessment of his fellow apostles: (a) ranking “the ones seeming to be something” is the tendency of judaizing instigators; (b) “whatever then they were matters nothing to me” is Paul’s viewpoint; (c) “God shows no favoritism” is the divine perspective.¹⁸ When on the defensive Paul is quick to affirm (perhaps sarcastically), “For I consider myself not in the least inferior to the most eminent apostles” (2 Cor. 11:5, NASB). Contextually, however, the allusion here is more likely in reference to the “false apostles” [ψευδαπόστολοι] deceptively claiming to be official delegates of Christ (vv. 12-15; cf. 12:11). Under less combative circumstances, Paul’s rhetoric is notably humble (1 Cor. 3:7; 15:9; cf. Eph. 3:8; 1 Tim. 1:12-16).

If, in Romans 16, Paul is employing the term “apostles” [ἀπόστολοι] generically as “sent ones” or “envoys,”¹⁹ no superior apostolic authority is implied. In fact, the only use of the verb form [ἀποστέλλω] in the letter is in this broader sense (10:15). Otherwise, Paul’s frequent assigning of the noun to himself (as in 1:1; 11:13, its only other occurrences in Romans) almost certainly carries the special sense of God’s authoritative representative.²⁰ And when he mentions his fellow apostolic colleagues, male gender is presupposed: “Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles …?” (1 Cor. 9:5). 

With multiple variables in play, therefore, being highly regarded “among [ἐν] the apostles” does not necessarily identify Andronicus and Junia(s) as members of the apostolic band but can be easily understood as how the apostles regarded them.²¹ At best the statement is ambiguous, but it is certainly not a foregone conclusion that the wording does not and cannot allude to knowledge or esteem shared among the apostles toward Andronicus and Junia(s).²² Seeing that less than three decades earlier there were “visitors from Rome” in Jerusalem in the company of the apostles (Acts 2:10), it should not be surprising that there were believers in Rome known to the apostles.

Ethnicity and Spiritual History

Andronicus and Junia(s) are Paul’s “kinsmen” [συγγενεῖς],²³ a descriptive term appearing twelve times in the NT. Mark, Luke, and John use it in the sense of blood-related family.²⁴ Paul, however, the only other NT writer to employ the expression (all in Romans), applies it in a different historical and literary context for a different purpose. His first use of the word is in chap. 9, clearly in the ethnocultural sense of “my brothers, my kinsmen [συγγενεῖς] according to the flesh. They are Israelites …”  (9:3-4a; cf. 11:1, 14). The rest of the word’s appearances in Romans are in the final chapter (16:7, 11, 21), with no suggestive change of meaning.²⁵ Aquila (v. 3) and Herodion (v. 11) are the only ones besides Andronicus and Junia(s) among Paul’s acquaintances in Rome who can be positively identified as Jewish. The same ethnic distinction is made of certain others of his associates in Colossians 4:10-11, with the qualifier “of the circumcision” [ἐκ περιτομῆς]. 

Andronicus and Junia(s) are also referred to as Paul’s “fellow prisoners” [συναιχμαλώτους].²⁶ Similar to “slave” imagery (cf. 1:1; 6:6-22), if viewed metaphorically²⁷ this could be descriptive of heartfelt conviction in having been taken captive by Christ (cf. 1:14).²⁸ But if literal incarceration is in view, Andronicus and Junia(s) were either imprisoned together with Paul at the same time and place, or they shared a similar experience.²⁹ Prior to the writing of Romans, even though Paul’s only documented confinement was with Silas at Philippi (Acts 16:23-25), he alludes to multiple (unrecorded) imprisonments (2 Cor. 6:5; 11:23).³⁰

As a chronological aside, Paul adds, “they were in Christ before [πρό] me,”³¹ placing their conversions within an approximately three-year window of time between the founding of the church in Jerusalem and Paul’s baptism in Damascus (Acts 2:41–9:18; cf. 21:16).³² This further underscores their eastern connection, Jewish affiliation, and rapport with the original apostles.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ A combination of the gen. ἀνδρός (“of man”) + νίκη (“victory”). During the reign of Ptolemy Philometor of Egypt (180-145 BC), a dispute arose between Samaritans and Alexandrian Jews over the temple’s rightful location, and the Jewish spokesman before the king was named Andronicus, son of Messalamus (Josephus, Ant. 13.3.4).  

     ² There are around twenty Roman inscriptions, approximating this time period, bearing the name Andronicus, about half of which are slaves or descendants of slaves, incl. a freedman named C. Iulius Andronicus (see P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 178; “Andronicus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:247-248). Another possible connection is Nicanor in the early Jerusalem church, known among the apostles (Acts 6:2-6), whose compound name (νίκη + nom. ἀνήρ) is the reverse form of Andronicus. Especially in Jewish circles, names had special communicatory meaning. Note, for example, the father of Bathsheba is recorded in 2 Sam. 11:3 as Eliam, a combination of el [אֵל] (“God”) + am [עם] (“kinsman”), meaning “God is [my] kinsman.” However, in 1 Chron. 3:5 the name is rendered Amiel, which is the same name with the component parts transposed: am [עם] (“kinsman”) + el [אֵל] (“God”), meaning “[my] kinsman is God.” Similarly, might Nicanor of Acts 6:5 be Andronicus of Rom. 16:7? 

     ³ Later tradition places Andronicus among the seventy(-two) disciples of Luke 10:1 and allegedly appointed bishop of Pannonia.

     ⁴ CJB, GNT, EHV, ERV, ESV, EMTV, GW, H/CSB, ISV, JUB, MEV, NASB20, NET, NMB, NABRE, NCV, NIRV, NLT, N/KJV, NRSV, NTE, REB, TMB, T/NIV, WEB, Weymouth. The name is a variant of Juno, the Roman goddess of love and marriage and protector of the state, comparable to the Greek goddess Hera.

     ⁵ AB, ASV, BLB, Darby, Douay-Rheims, ERV, LSV, NAB, NASB95, NEB, NLV, Phillips, RSV, TLB, YLT. The RSV reads, “Andronicus and Junias … men of note …” 

     ⁶ For each side of the debate, see E. Staggs and F. Staggs, Woman in the World of Jesus 162-86 (identified as apostles); and A. A. Dos, Solving the Romans Debate 127-36 (not identified as apostles).

     ⁷ The UBS text committee has given the “A” rating to the spelling Ἰουνιαν but could not come to an agreement on how the name should be accented (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 475-76). The NA²⁷ and UBS⁴ read Ἰουνιᾶν, whereas the NA²⁸ and UBS⁵ read Ἰουνίαν.

     ⁸ See NET footnote; B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary (2nd ed.) 475-76; J. Piper and W. Grudem, 50 Crucial Questions 79-80. The Thesaurus Linguae Graecae (TLG) documents only three occurrences in Greek literature of the Greek form of the name (between the ninth century BC and the fifth century AD), the only one of which close to Paul’s time period is Junia [Ἰουνία] Tertia or Tertulla (ca. 75 BC – AD 22), younger half-sister of Marcus Junius Brutus, recorded in Greek by Plutarch (AD 46-119) in Life of Brutus 7.1.

     ⁹ E. Y. L. Ng, “Was Junia(s) in Rom 16:7 a Female Apostle?,” JETS 63.3 (2020): 521-22. 

     ¹⁰ From the Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum (CIL). See P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 176; and D. B. Wallace, “Junia Among the Apostles,” also observing that Junias is attested as a Latin nickname. The prestigious family name Junius was not uncommon, e.g., Lucius Junius Brutus (founder of the Roman Republic), and two of Julius Caesar’s assassins, Marcus Junius Brutus and Decimus Junius Brutus Albinus.

     ¹¹ Reportedly inscribed on ossuaries in the time of Paul. See A. Wolters, “ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ (Romans 16:7) and the Hebrew Name Yěḥunnī,” JBL 27.2 (2008): 397-408.

     ¹² On the whole, scribal accentuation has historically favored the male name, whereas ecclesiastical writers have favored the female name (see J. A. Fitzmyer, Romans 737-38). As to the former, accusing scribes of gender bias or patriarchal suppression is not only speculative and pejorative but unnecessarily assumes all copyists were men and unscrupulous ones at that! The majority of so-called “church fathers” advocating the name’s feminine form were Latin, dating from the fourth century onwards. Among the Greek patristic authors espousing this interpretation, the earliest possibility is Origen of Alexandria (185-254), although most of his words are preserved in Latin translation, particularly by Rufinus of Aquileia (340-410). Citing Origin as evidence of the name Junia in Rom. 16:7 faces the twofold challenge of (a) whether Rufinus is actually the one responsible for the spelling; and (b) variant readings among surviving manuscripts with the masculine form (cf. J. P. Migne, Patrologia Graeca 14.1289). Stronger support is provided by John Chrysostom (347-407), who just so happens to represent the same time period as Rufinus and the earliest Latin supporters of the name’s feminine form, such as Ambrose of Milan (339-397) and Jerome (340-419). Other Greek commentators followed suit, like Theodoret of Cyrus (ca. 393-458/66), John of Damascus (ca. 676-749), etc. Conversely, the earlier Greek author Epiphanius (310-403) accepted the masculine name.

     ¹³ D. B. Wallace, “Junia Among the Apostles,” <Web>. “It is impossible to tell from the Greek form used here whether the name was Junia (feminine) or Junias (masculine)” (F. F. Bruce, The Pauline Circle 83 n.4).

     ¹⁴ Presumed to have been a freed person from the east connected to the Iunia family (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 176).

     ¹⁵ For a scholarly and thorough treatment of this text, see M. H. Burer and D. B. Wallace, “Was Junia Really an Apostle?” NTS 47 (2001): 76-91; followed by Burer’s “Ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς Ἀποστόλοις in Rom 16:7,” JETS 58.4 (2015): 731-55, extending the research with additional data, responding to criticisms, and building an even stronger case.

     ¹⁶ Here, and in Matt. 27:16 with the negative connotation of “notorious.”

     ¹⁷ See Matt. 10:2-4; Mark 3:16-19; Luke 6:14-16; Acts 1:13, 26; 1 Cor. 15:7-11. 

     ¹⁸ God’s impartiality is a common theme in the teachings of Paul (Rom. 2:11; 3:22; 10:12; Eph. 6:9; Col. 3:25), as well as Peter (Acts 10:34; 15:9; 1 Pet. 1:17), James (Acts 15:13-19; Jas. 2:1-9), and John (John 1:9-13; 1 John 2:2; 3:1-3; 4:7-9; Rev. 5:9; 7:9-10). Paul’s standing in the Lord’s church was not dependent on the Jerusalem leaders (cf. Gal. 1:1, 10-17), even though some deluded persons were enamored with them beyond what was reasonable.

     ¹⁹ The noun ἀπόστολος and cognate verb ἀποστέλλω (to “send out or away”) are used generically in Paul’s writings with reference to anyone who is sent as a delegate or messenger (cf. 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 1 Thess. 2:6). The verb ἀποστέλλω is applied to Paul’s commission to the Gentiles (Acts 26:17); accordingly both he and Barnabas are described as ἀπόστολοι (Acts 14:4, 14), lit. “sent ones” (cf. 13:2-3). In 1 and 2 Thessalonians, the earliest extant Pauline documents, Paul is mentioned by name only (without the designation “apostle”), while the term ἀπόστολοι is applied generically to the three missionary co-authors (1 Thess. 1:1; 2:6).

     ²⁰ 1 Cor. 1:1; 9:1-2; 15:9; 2 Cor. 1:1; 11:5; 12:11-12; Gal. 1:1, 17; Eph. 1:1; 2:20; 3:5; Col. 1:1; 1 Tim. 1:1; 2:7; 2 Tim. 1:1, 11; Tit. 1:1. On the word ἀπόστολος and its various uses, see BDAG 122; D. Müller, NIDNTT 126-35, with C. Brown’s addendum 135-37; K. H. Rengstorf, TDNT 1:407-45; J. A. Kirk, “Apostleship since Rengstorf” 249-64; also J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Galatians 10-11; J. B. Lightfoot, Galatians 95-99. J. Murray reasons that if Andronicus and Junia(s) were in fact “apostles,” then the term “would be used in a more general sense of messenger …. it is more probable that the sense is that these persons were well known to the apostles …” (Romans 229-30).

     ²¹ D. J. Moo opines, “if Paul had wanted to say that Andronicus and Junia were esteemed ‘by’ the apostles, we would have expected him to use a simple dative or ὑπό with the genitive” (Romans 923). However, D. B. Wallace has shown this is not always true and gives examples to the contrary (“Junia Among the Apostles,” <Web>). 

     ²² To say that a particular European politician in New Zealand is “esteemed among the Māori people” does not imply that the politician is of Māori heritage.

     ²³ Variously rendered “kinsmen” (ASV, ESV, NASB95, KJV, RSV), “countrymen” (HCSB, NKJV), “compatriots” (NET), “fellow Jews” (CSB, ISV, NIV, NLT), “kinsfolk” (NASB20), “relatives” (CEV, LSV, NAB, NRSV, TLB, WEB).

     ²⁴ Mark 6:4; Luke 1:36, 58; 2:44; 14:12; 21:16; John 18:26; Acts 10:24. All that can be known for certain about Paul’s blood-relatives is his Benjamite/Pharisee father (Acts 23:6; Rom. 11:1; Phil. 3:5), and his sister and nephew (Acts 23:16).

     ²⁵ Contra H. A. W. Meyer, Romans 567-68; J. Murray, “Romans” 229-31, arguing for a “closer relation of kinship.” E. F. Harrison, however, points out, in view of Paul’s loss of everything from his material past (Phil. 3:7-13), “the improbability of his having three kinfolk in Rome (cf. v.11) and three more in Corinth (v.21)” (“Romans” 164-65).

     ²⁶ Combination of σύν (“with”) + αἰχμάλωτος (“captive”); cf. also Col. 4:10; Philem. 23.

     ²⁷ G. Kittel, TDNT 1:196-97.

     ²⁸ Cf. 1 Cor. 9:16-17; 2 Cor. 2:14; Eph. 4:8; Phil. 3:12.

     ²⁸ Imprisonment in the Roman world was not designed as punishment or rehabilitation but as a temporary measure (albeit drawn out at times) while the accused awaited trial, followed by release, judicial fine, beating, exile, forced labor, enslavement, or execution. As to the “Junia/s” debate, prisoners were not separated by gender. See F. Millar, Rome, the Greek World, and the East 2:128-31; M. A. Powell, “Prison Conditions in the Roman World” 23.6; G. Türkoğlu and B. Dönmez, “Judicial Fines and Imprisonment Penalty in Roman Law” 121-38.

     ³⁰ Clement of Rome reported that the apostle was in bonds a total of seven times (I Clement 5:6). After Paul sent his letter to the Romans, he spent two years as a prisoner in Caesarea (Acts 24:27), another two years in Rome (Acts 28:30), and after apparent release he was imprisoned again at Rome (2 Tim. 1:16-17; 4:16-17). Some have suggested Ephesus as another possibility, but there is no definitive record of an Ephesian internment, although Paul did suffer many afflictions there (Acts 19:23-41; 1 Cor. 15:32; 2 Cor. 1:8-10). At least five of Paul’s extant letters were composed while he was incarcerated (Eph. 3:1, 13; 4:1; 6:20; Phil. 1:7-16; Col. 4:3-18; Philem. 9, 10, 13, 23; 2 Tim. 1:8, 12, 16-17; 2:9; 4:6, 16), all of which were written after the letter to the Romans.

     ³¹ The prepositional phrase “in Christ” [ἐν Χριστῷ] (cf. vv. 3, 9, 10), as a sphere of reference equivalent to the adjectival “Christian” [χριστιανός] (M. J. Harris, Prepositions and Theology 124), is comparable to “in the Lord” (vv. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13) and implies that they were Christians before Paul’s conversion, while the perfect tense γέγοναν is descriptive of “having become” in the past and continuing in the present. Nevertheless, the “in Christ” expression “can hardly be reduced over all to a mere label, or its significance be satisfactorily grasped in such a desiccated formulation” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 399-400). 

     ³² For chronological details and approx. dates, see K. L. Moore, A Critical Introduction to the NT 38-42.

Related Posts: Phoebe Commended (Rom 16:1-2), Epaenetus & Mary (Rom 16:5-6)

 

Image credit: https://clipart-library.com/clip-art/two-people-silhouette-14.htm

The Last Chapter of Romans: Greetings to Epaenetus and Mary (Romans 16:5b-6)

“Greet my beloved Epaenetus, who was the first convert to Christ in Asia” (Romans 16:5b, ESV). 

The Greek name “Epaenetus” [Ἐπαίνετος] means “praiseworthy” (the Greek equivalent of the Hebraic “Judah”). This name has been found on three Roman inscriptions of the relevant time period, all indicative of eastern origins; one belongs to a freedman. The comparable names Epaenus and Epaenis are included among slaves.¹

Technically Paul does not identify Epaenetus as “the first convert,” rather “a firstfruit” [ἀπαρχὴ]. This term occurs eight times in the Greek NT, three in Romans (8:23; 11:16; 16:5), three in 1 Corinthians (15:20, 23; 16:15), and twice outside of Paul (Jas. 1:18; Rev. 14:4). The nearest parallel to this verse is 1 Corinthians 16:15, where the household of Stephanas is noted as “a firstfruit of Achaia” [ἀπαρχὴ τῆς Ἀχαΐας], not necessarily the very first to have been baptized but among the earliest conversions (cf. Acts 18:7-8; 1 Cor. 1:14-16). Accordingly, Epaenetus is “a firstfruit” (among the first) “of Asia” (the Roman province of western Asia Minor) “for” [εἰς]² “Christ.” 

The reading Ἀχαΐας (“Achaia”) here in the Byzantine Majority Text and Textus Receptus is supported by a couple of early Syriac versions but is probably a transcriptional error or interpolation from 15:26 and/or 1 Cor. 16:15. The weight of textual and patristic evidence supports Ἀσίας (“Asia”). Paul had already identified the household of Stephanas as “a firstfruit [ἀπαρχή] of Achaia,” specifically naming Stephanas, Fortunatus, and Achaicus but not Epaenetus (1 Cor. 16:15-17).³

Having been greeted immediately after Prisca and Aquila and the church in their house, Epaenetus is regarded by Paul as “my beloved” [τὸν ἀγαπητόν μου], an endearing expression of mutual affection and indicative of a close relationship.⁴ This very personal descriptor, an epithet of Jesus,⁵ is comparable here to “my dear friend,”⁶ also applied to Stachys (v. 9), and with slight variations to Ampliatus (v. 8) and to Persis (v. 12). In the Roman world of Paul, friendship (amicitia) was intertwined with goodwill, reciprocal acts of kindness, and hospitality.⁷

Although the apostle had recently spent three years in Asia (Acts 20:31), it is unlikely that Epaenetus was one of his converts. The Holy Spirit initially forbade Paul and his traveling companions from entering Asia (Acts 16:6). Instead, Prisca and Aquila started the Lord’s work in the province’s capital city of Ephesus, so Epaenetus would then have been included among the earliest “brethren” [οἱ ἀδελφοί] (Acts 18:27)⁸ and thus a member of the church meeting in their house (1 Cor. 16:19). It is not improbable that Epaenetus had moved to Rome with Prisca and Aquila as part of their household, their business, and/or their ministry team. 

“Greet Mary, who has worked hard for you” (Romans 16:6). 

It is unclear whether the name “Mary” in the Greek text has been transliterated from the Latin Maria (of Gentile origin) or the Grecized Μαριάμ from the Hebrew Miryām (of Jewish origin).⁹ Etymological uncertainties aside, contextually this Mary is not included among those directly spotlighted as Paul’s ethnic “kinspeople” [συγγενεῖς] (vv. 7, 11, 21). There seems to be a stronger case, then, for the Latin Maria, which, as a hereditary family name, was prevalent in ancient Rome and indicative of a freedwoman.¹⁰

In the Roman context, as with all the other greeted names in this chapter, a Jewish name worn by a Gentile is less likely than a Gentile name worn by anyone, irrespective of ethnicity. The Latin Maria is the feminine form of Marius, a Roman family name (nomen gentilicium) worn by members of the gens Maria, a lineage of commoners. The name might be derived from “Mars” (Roman god of war) or the Latin term mare (“sea”) and its plural form maria.

That she “has worked hard,” lit. “labored much” [πολλὰ ἐκοπίασεν], intensifies the already intense verbal κοπιάω, denoting laborious toil to the point of fatigue.¹¹ Paul applies the descriptive term to only four persons in this chapter, all of whom are women (vv. 6, 12). The “you” (plural) [ὑμᾶς]¹² is in reference to the entire readership, so Mary has crossed congregational boundaries in her tiresome labors. In contrast to the first-person pronominal allusions in the surrounding verses, the beneficiaries of Mary’s efforts are referenced in the second person, suggesting that Paul knew of her and her activities only indirectly, perhaps through Prisca and Aquila (cf. vv. 3-4).¹³ Evidently, “there is something finer in Paul’s appreciation of services rendered to others than if they had been rendered to himself.”¹⁴

Conclusion

From Epaenetus we observe the spiritual growth of a new convert in a hostile environment, having transitioned to another mission field, recognized as a loyal friend having endeared himself to one of the church’s most prominent leaders. Our sister Mary exemplifies the admirable quality of selfless and dedicated hard work in the service of the Lord, shining the light of Christ and blessing the lives of so many in her community. 

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ See P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 180; “Epaenetus” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 2:532.

     ² While the basic sense of the preposition εἰς is “movement into a location,” it seems to be less specific here in the sense of “towards, in reference to, for” (J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 405); cf. also 2 Cor. 1:21; 11:3; Gal. 3:24; Philem. 6.

     ³ That Epaenetus could have been a member of Stephanas’s household is not impossible, but neither is it provable or even necessary to surmise.

     ⁴ While the term ἀγαπητός is also used broadly in relation to God’s family (Rom. 1:7; 11:28; 12:19; Eph. 5:1; 1 Tim. 6:2) and of certain individuals warmly regarded in the brotherhood (Eph. 6:21; Col. 4:7,14), for Paul it was mostly personal and relational (cf. 1 Cor. 4:14, 17; 10:14; 15:58; 2 Cor. 7:1; 12:19; Phil. 2:12; 4:1; Col. 1:7; 4:9; 1 Thess. 2:8; 2 Tim. 1:2; Philem. 1, 16).

     ⁵ Matt. 3:17; 12:18; 17:5; Mark 1:11; 9:7; Luke 3:22; cf. Mark 12:6; Luke 20:13.

     ⁶ CSB, CEB, CEV, ERV, GNT, GW, ISV, NCV, NET, NIRV, NIV, NLT. However, D. J. Moo warns against overinterpreting the expression and suggests it may simply mean “fellow believer” (Romans 920).

     ⁷ See esp. K. Verboven, “Friendship Among the Romans,” in The Oxford Handbook of Social Relations 404-21; cf. also M. Dillon and L. Garland, Ancient Rome: Social and Historical Documents 87; M. Gezler, The Roman Nobility 65-68; R. P. Saller, Personal Patronage under the Early Empire 13-21.

     ⁸ Troas cannot be ruled out (Acts 16:8-10), but information is insufficient to make a plausible case.  

     ⁹ The nominative Μαρίαμ (BMT/TR) in this verse instead of the accusative Μαρίαν (NA²⁸/UBS⁵) is grammatically displaced. All the other names in the chapter to whom greetings are sent are written in the accusative case. Elsewhere in the NT, the name translated “Mary” varies in the nominative case between Μαρία (Matt. 27:56, 61b; 28:1b; Mark 15:40, 47; Luke 8:2; 24:10; etc.) and Μαριάμ (Matt. 13:55; 27:61a; 28:1a; Luke 1:27-39; 2:5, 16; etc.). The sister of Moses and Aaron in the Hebrew OT was called Miriam (Ex. 15:20-21; Num. 12:1-4), but the origin and meaning of her name is uncertain. If Egyptian, it could mean “beloved.” If strictly Hebrew, it could mean “bitter” or “rebellion,” perhaps relevant to the circumstances of the Hebrew people in Egypt at the time. 

     ¹⁰ See P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 74 n.25, 175-76; “Roman Christians” 225; “Mary” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 4:582-583; W. Sanday and A. C. Headlam, Romans 422. 

     ¹¹ Acts 20:35; 1 Cor. 4:12; 15:10; 16:16; Gal. 4:11; Eph. 4:28; Phil. 2:16; Col. 1:29; 1 Thess. 5:12; 1 Tim. 4:10; 5:17; 2 Tim. 2:6.

     ¹² The reading “you” [ὑμᾶς] has better and broader textual support (also 15:7) than “us” [ἡμᾶς].

     ¹³ D. J. Moo, Romans 921 n.27; P. Lampe, “Roman Christians” 220.

     ¹⁴ J. Denney, “Romans” 719.

Related Posts: Greetings to Prisca & Aquila (Rom 16:3-5a), Andronicus & Junia(s) (Rom 16:7)

 

Image credit: https://wordpoints.com/apostles-october-12/

The Last Chapter of Romans: Greetings to Prisca and Aquila (Romans 16:3-5a)

“Greet Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who risked their necks for my life, to whom not only I give thanks but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well. Greet also the church in their house” (Romans 16:3-5a, ESV). 

Who Are Prisca and Aquila?

Paul’s first and most extensive greeting in the final chapter of Romans is to “Prisca and Aquila,” aptly considered the “most prominent couple involved in the first-century expansion of Christianity ...”¹ They are named six times in four NT books and always together.² “Aquila” [Ἀκύλας], whose name is of Latin derivation meaning “eagle,”³ was an ethnic Jew originally from Pontus in north-central Asia Minor (modern-day Turkey). He was married to “Prisca” [Πρίσκα], her formal Latin-based name, who was also known by the lengthened version “Priscilla” [Πρίσκιλλα],⁴ meaning “ancient” or “venerable.” Textual variants notwithstanding, Paul was accustomed to using formal names (e.g., Prisca, Sosipater, Silvanus),⁵ whereas Luke favored the more conventional forms (Priscilla, Sopater, Silas).⁶

In contrast to the customary practice of naming the husband first, Paul reverses the order here, as both he and Luke do in other places as well (Acts 18:18, 26;⁷ 2 Tim. 4:19). On all four occasions, authorial explanations are lacking. Rather than suggesting a more prominent leadership role in the church,⁸ which is not only “exegetically irresponsible”⁹ but is inconsistent with what Paul explicitly teaches elsewhere,¹⁰ the naming of Aquila first in other passages (Acts 18:2; 1 Cor. 16:19) cancels out this unwarranted assumption. 

Some have theorized that Prisca may have been of higher social standing, whether from a prestigious Roman family (thus ethnically non-Jewish) or emancipated therefrom.¹¹ Yet for Paul, social status was irrelevant in the Lord (cf. 12:3-16),¹² and this explanation does not account for Aquila’s name preceding hers elsewhere. Perhaps Prisca was more outgoing or better known to the reading audiences, whether personally or by reputation. While it could be as simple as stylistic variety accentuating neither spouse, it is interesting to note that when Paul sends greetings to the couple, Prisca is named first (Rom. 6:3; 2 Tim. 4:19), and when he sends greetings from them, Aquila is named first (1 Cor. 16:19).¹³

Fellow-workers

Paul acknowledges Prisca and Aquila as “fellow workers [συνεργοί] in Christ Jesus,”¹⁴ along with so many others (vv.  6, 9, 12, 21)¹⁵ laboring in partnership with God.¹⁶ They “risked their necks” for his life, although specific accounts are unrecorded. Their Christian faith and association with a firebrand like Paul left them susceptible to inevitable dangers and hardships. The biblical record traces their movements from Rome to Corinth around the year 49 (Acts 18:1-2),¹⁷ from Corinth to Ephesus early 52 (Acts 18:18-19; 1 Cor. 16:19), from Ephesus to Rome by late 56 (Rom. 16:3-5),¹⁸ and then from Rome, prior to Nero’s persecution, back to Ephesus approximately seven-and-a-half years later (2 Tim. 4:19). It is possible that their tentmaking business, which may have included producing a variety of leather and woven goods (e.g., booths, canopies, awnings), had branches in multiple centers, enabling them to move freely between Rome, Corinth, and Ephesus.¹⁹

Paul first encountered the couple when he arrived in Corinth by late autumn of the year 50,²⁰ though it is unclear in the Acts narrative whether or not they were already Christians at the time. Paul’s association with them began because of a shared ethnic heritage and tentmaking vocation, and he was a guest in their home (Acts 18:2-3).²¹ The first reported converts in Corinth were not Prisca and Aquila but the respective households of Stephanas and Crispus, along with Gaius and presumably Titius Justus (Acts 18:7-8; 1 Cor 1:14-16; 16:15). It is not improbable, therefore, that Prisca and Aquila were already Christians before leaving Rome, “founder-members, perhaps, of the Roman church.”²²

Along with Paul they could have been forced to leave Corinth and later Ephesus (Acts 18:12-19; 19:23–20:1). The last time they were all together, prior to the writing of Romans, was in Ephesus where the trials they faced were excessive and life-threatening (1 Cor. 15:30-32a; 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:8-10).²³

Equitable Service

Not only was Paul grateful for their labors and partnership in the Lord’s work, “but all the churches of the Gentiles give thanks as well.” Although Prisca’s ethnicity is unknown for sure, Aquila was Jewish (Acts 18:2), so the observation here exemplifies what Paul has stressed throughout the letter concerning Jew-Gentile “one-another-ness” in God’s family.²⁴ This couple had been instrumental in planting and/or growing Christian communities in the predominantly Gentile territories of Achaia, Asia, and now back in Italy,²⁵ thus “the self-giving activity of Prisca and Aquila for the churches emphasizes interchurch solidarity ...”²⁶

Hosting a House Church

“Greet also the church [ἐκκλησία]²⁷ in their house.” The regular assembling of a local group of disciples requires a place to meet.²⁸ While various gathering places are noted in scripture,²⁹ a family’s residence proved to be most expedient for many first-century churches, esp. when the nucleus of the church was the household. Christians assembled in private homes in Jerusalem (Acts 12:5, 12), Philippi (Acts 16:40), Corinth (Rom. 16:23), Colosse (Philem. 2), Laodicea (Col. 4:15), and Rome (Rom. 16:5).³⁰ Allusions to what appears to be at least two other groups of Christians in Rome and possibly four (vv. 10, 11, 14, 15) provide no details about their meeting facilities.

The first assembly place of the Corinth church may have been Prisca and Aquila’s house (Acts 18:1-11).³¹ When the couple relocated to Ephesus to initiate the Lord’s work, Apollos was among the earliest converts (Acts 18:18-26) along with others, presupposed by “the brethren” [οἱ ἀδελφοί] writing a letter of commendation to accompany him to Achaia (Acts 18:27). About three years later Prisca and Aquila were still in Ephesus and the church was meeting in their home (1 Cor. 16:19). By the time the letter to the Romans was written (winter 56-57), the couple was back in Rome hosting another house church. 

First-century house churches would have been relatively small compared to today’s larger assemblies in many areas of the world. While a modest apartment (insula), restricting the number of people who could meet together (about 10-20 in one place), may have been the type of “house” in which some congregations gathered in urban environments,³² larger houses would have been available to Christian groups that included members of society’s upper class (cf. 1 Cor. 1:26; 11:22).³³ Archeology has conclusively shown that the atrium in a large Roman-style house would accommodate up to 30-50 people³⁴ (cf. v. 23).

“Historically, it is a reminder of how dependent on quite tiny groups was the development of Christianity …. Theologically, the point is that the dynamic of being ‘the church of God’ did not require large groups in any one place.”³⁵

Conclusion

Prisca and Aquila are exemplary role models for any Christian couple committed to the Lord and his church.

--Kevin L. Moore

Endnotes:

     ¹ J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Prisca and Aquila,” BRev 8.6 (1992): 40.

     ² Acts 18:1-3, 18-28; 1 Cor. 16:19; Rom. 16:3-4; 2 Tim. 4:19.

     ³ This name appears in Roman inscriptions around twenty-eight times, indicative of eastern provenance, four of which are references to slaves. See P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 169-70, 181; “Aquila” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 1:319-20. 

     ⁴ The TR reads “Priscilla” in Rom. 16:3, whereas “Prisca” is decisively confirmed by the weight of textual data as per the manuscripts underlying the BMT, NA²⁸/UBS⁵, and external evidence (see B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 475).

     ⁵ Rom. 16:3, 21; 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Cor. 1:19; 1 Thess. 1:1; 2 Thess. 1:1; 2 Tim. 4:19. If the name “Priscilla” in the BMT/TR reading of 1 Cor. 16:19 was merely an attempt to harmonize Luke and Paul, why does “Prisca” in the textual tradition of Acts not occur? (D. A. Kurek-Chomycz, “Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency,” JBL 125:1 [2006]: 109).

     ⁶ Acts 15:22–18:26; 20:4.

     ⁷ In Acts 18:26 Priscilla’s name is placed before Aquila’s in the standard NA²⁸/UBS⁵ text, whereas the reverse order appears in the BMT/TR. It is reasonable to suggest that the former reading “must be accepted as original, for there was always a tendency among scribes to change the unusual to the usual” (B. M. Metzger, Textual Commentary [2nd ed.] 413-14; cf. also 402-403, 407). On a presumed antifeminist scribal tendency, see B. M. Metzger and B. D. Ehrman, The Text of the NT 290; J. H. Ropes, The Text of Acts ccxxxiv; B. Witherington III, “The Anti-Feminist Tendencies,” JBL 103 (1984): 82-84. But D. A. Kurek-Chomycz sensibly observes, “In most cases, however, one can think of a variety of other reasons that may have induced the scribes to modify a given text. What is more, since we do not have access to the minds of the copyists, which could allow us to establish their intentions and motives for introducing particular changes, we can only speculate, with greater or lesser probability, on why and how certain readings have come about” (“Is There an ‘Anti-Priscan’ Tendency” 107-128).

     ⁸ C. E. B. Cranfield, Critical Romans 2:784; K. M. Elliott, Women in Ministry 14-15; R. H. Rowland, I Permit Not a Woman To Remain Shackled 73-77; K. Schenck, A Biblical Argument for Women in Ministry and Leadership 22-23. Because of her comparative prominence, it has also been suggested that she may have authored the NT book of Hebrews (A. von Harnack, The Bible Status of Woman 392-415; R. Hoppin, Priscilla’s Letter 11-122). However, the masculine participle διηγούμενον (“recounting”) in Heb. 11:32 implicitly identifies the author as male. For a recent refutation of the Priscillan authorship theory, see B. J. Jeffries, “Hebrews, She Wrote?” JETS 67.1 (2024): 47-66.

     ⁹ D. B. Wallace, “Aquila and Priscilla,” Bible.org (retrieved 3 May 2024), <Web>.

     ¹⁰ 1 Cor. 14:34-35; Eph. 5:22-33; Col. 3:18-19; 1 Tim. 2:8-15; 3:1-13. See K. L. Moore, “The Bible’s Radical View on Women,” Moore Perspective (6 March 2019), <Link>.

     ¹¹ R. H. Finger, Paul and Roman House Churches 33-34; J. Murphy-O’Connor, “Prisca and Aquila” 44; F. F. Bruce, The Book of Acts 348; The Pauline Circle 45. There are thirty-one Roman inscriptions with a form of this name belonging to (freed) female slaves, but the designation συνεργοί (“coworkers”) may suggest a background among freeborn persons (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 181-83; “Prisca/Priscilla” in Anchor Bible Dictionary 5:467-468). 

     ¹² 1 Cor. 1:26; 7:17-24; 12:12-13; Gal. 3:26-28; Col. 3:11; Philem. 10-17.

     ¹³ F. F. Bruce reasons that if Paul was in their home while 1 Corinthians was being dictated/written, Prisca may have insisted that her husband be named first (The Pauline Circle 44-45).  

     ¹⁴ The prepositional phrase “in Christ Jesus” [ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ] (cf. vv. 7, 9, 10), comparable to “in the Lord” (vv. 2, 8, 11, 12, 13), extends the working relationship beyond the secular tentmaking trade.

     ¹⁵ 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 1:24; 6:1; 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; 1 Thess. 3:2; Philem. 1, 24; outside of Paul, the only other occurrence of συνεργοί (“coworkers”) in the NT is 3 John 8. “The term always denotes work in ministry, but the kind of ministry undertaken is not specified …” (D. J. Moo, Romans 920 n.14). 

     ¹⁶ 1 Cor. 3:9; 2 Cor. 6:1; 1 Thess. 3:2; although in the Thessalonian text there are five different readings among the various witnesses: (a) “God’s coworker,” (b) “coworker,” (c) “God’s servant,” (d) “servant and God’s coworker,” (e) “God’s servant and our coworker” (see B. M. Metzger, Text of the NT [4th ed.] 337-38).

     ¹⁷ Claudius dispelled Jews from Rome in the year 49 (his ninth year as emperor), the dating of which comes primarily from the fifth-century historian Paulus Orosius (Hist. Adv. Pag.7.6.15-16). Even though there is a degree of uncertainty as to the exactness of this date, it is consistent with other chronological data and is based on historical information available to Orosius that is no longer extant (see R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period 201). 

     ¹⁸ The edict of Claudius was presumably rescinded when he died October 54. “The return of the couple to Rome could be conceivable as a ‘strategic’ move previously agreed upon with Paul” (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 158; cf. also “Roman Christians” 220; J. Murphy O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life 328).

     ¹⁹ P. W. Barnett, “Tentmaking” in DPL 926; F. F. Bruce, Paul, Apostle of the Heart Set Free 250-51.

     ²⁰ Lucius Junius Gallio Novatianus (a.k.a. Gallio, son of Seneca the Elder and brother of Seneca the Younger) began his one-year office as proconsul of Achaia in June 51 (cf. Acts 18:2, 12). The Gallio inscription, discovered at Delphi and published in 1905 (with additional fragments found and then published in 1970), dates between April and July 52, from which it can be deduced that Gallio was proconsul of Achaia in the previous year. Paul’s eighteen-months’ ministry in Corinth would therefore date between autumn 50 and spring 52. See R. Riesner, Paul’s Early Period 162-79, 190-93; J. Murphy-O’Connor, Paul: A Critical Life 9-10, 15-16; D. J. Theron, Evidence of Tradition 12-13; F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts 347 n.9.   

     ²¹ After Aquila and Priscilla moved away from Corinth, Paul stayed with Gaius on a return visit (Rom. 16:23).  

     ²² F. F. Bruce, Book of Acts 347; cf. also The Pauline Circle 46. P. Lampe reasons that Luke understandably refrained from describing them as Christians prior to Paul’s arrival in Corinth because the primary thrust of the narrative is the apostle and his church planting work (From Paul to Valentinus 11-13). 

     ²³ The first-person plurals (“we,” “us”) are inclusive of Paul’s companions as fellow-sufferers. As in Corinth and other places, Paul would have been provided accommodation in Ephesus, and the home of Prisca and Aquila, likely available to him, would have been a target of hostilities (compare Acts 17:5-9).

     ²⁴ Note also Paul’s emphasis on the inclusion of Gentiles in God’s family (Rom. 3:29; 9:24, 30; 11:25; 15:12-27). 

     ²⁵ “That Aquila and Prisca, immediately after their expulsion from Rome, so unreservedly joined in the work of the Pauline mission to the Gentiles in Corinth … raises the possibility that they had been accustomed to living together with Gentile Christians already …” (P. Lampe, From Paul to Valentinus 69).

     ²⁶ J. T. Hughes, Ecclesial Solidarity 145. Note also Mary in v. 6.  

     ²⁷ Note that the Christians assembling in Prisca and Aquila’s home are called a “church” [ἐκκλησία] (v. 1), while the group referenced in v. 14 are “brothers” [ἀδελφοί] and those in v. 15 are “saints” [ἅγιοι]. These terms, as understood and consistently used by Paul, do not distinguish these groups as much as describing them as independent yet unified within the same community.

     ²⁸ Acts 11:26; 12:5, 12; 14:27; 15:30; 20:7-8; 1 Cor. 5:5; 11:17-20, 33-34; 14:3-5, 12-26; Heb. 10:24-25; Jas. 2:2.

     ²⁹ Acts 2:46; 5:12; 16:13; 19:8-10; 20:7-8; 26:11; Jas. 2:2; cf. also Matt. 3:1; 4:23; 5:1; 9:35; 12:9; 13:1, 54; 14:13-15; 15:29; 21:14, 23; 24:1; et al.

     ³⁰ Cf. also Acts 5:42; 16:34; 17:5; 18:7; 20:7-8, 20. As Saul persecuted the Jerusalem “church,” comprised of thousands of Christians, he targeted “the houses” (Acts 8:3; cf. 2:46). Consider also the Lord’s frequent use of private homes during his public ministry (Matt. 9:10-13, 28; 10:14; 12:46–13:1, 36; 17:25; 26:6, 18; Mark 1:29, 33; 2:1-2, 15; 3:19-20; 5:38; 7:17; 9:33; et al.).

     ³¹ R. Jewett, “Tenement Churches and Communal Meals,” BibRes 38 (1993): 25. Another possibility, based on Acts 18:7, is the home of Titius Justus (C. E. B. Cranfield, Critical Romans 2:807). 

     ³² A. A. Bell, Jr., Exploring the NT World 207; E. Ferguson, Backgrounds of Early Christianity (3rd ed.) 140; R. Jewett, “Tenement Churches” 23-43. The term οἶκος (“house”) could apply to any dwelling place or home or household. In Palestine the typical family residence was apparently rather small, as Jesus referred to a single lamp lighting an entire house (Matt. 5:15; cf. Luke 8:16). 

     ³³ See G. Theissen, Social Setting 73-96; “Social Structure” 65-84; A. J. Malherbe, Social Aspects 76. 

     ³⁴ G. D. Fee, First Corinthians 533-34; and J. Murphy-O’Connor, St. Paul’s Corinth 178-85, providing dimensions of numerous archaeological sites throughout the Empire. See also K. L. Moore, “The Pentecost-day Miracle,” Moore Perspective (23 Jan. 2019), <Link>; and “The Sociocultural Context of the New Testament (Part 6): House Churches,” Moore Perspective (24 July 2019), <Link>.

     ³⁵ J. D. G. Dunn, Theology of Paul the Apostle 542; cf. also M. Barth and H. Blanke, The Letter to Philemon 260-62.

Related Posts: Phoebe Commended (Rom 16:1-2), Epaenetus & Mary (Rom 16:5-6)

 

Image credit: https://clipart-library.com/free/two-hands-silhouette.html