The Destination Of Chapter 16
THE DESTINATION OF CHAPTER 16
Quite a different question is the original destination of chapter 16. Many scholars wonder whether this was meant for the Roman church, and some take it as axiomatic that it was not. Usually such hold that its original destination was Ephesus but that it has somehow become attached to Romans. The following points are relevant.
1. The salutations are surprisingly numerous when we recall that Paul had never been to Rome. He greets 26 individuals (24 by name) and five households or house churches. He speaks of three “fellow-workers”, two “fellow-prisoners”, three people whom he calls “beloved”, and a lady he greets as his mother. “Had Paul’s friends, it is asked, migrated in a body to Rome?”100 It is felt that he is more likely to have this number of friends at Ephesus (where he had ministered extensively) than at Rome (where he had never been).
But there is more to it than this. We must ask, for example, what would have been the reaction on others at Ephesus if 26 of their number were greeted in a letter read out in the assembly.101 Paul must have known more than 26 of them quite well. It would have been invidious to make a selection. Moreover, Paul does not normally send greetings to members of churches he knew. Such a practice would create obvious difficulties. No such greetings are found in 1 and 2 Thessalonians, 1 and 2 Corinthians, Galatians, or Philippians. Indeed, the only Pauline letter with anything of the sort is Colossians, another letter to a church Paul had not visited. Even there he greets only one person by name (Nympha, Col. 4:15), the other greetings being from people Paul names.
2. Connections with Rome. Some point out that most of the names in Paul’s list are found in the inscriptions in Rome. But it is fairly countered that there are so many names in this vast list that inclusion proves nothing. Most names occur in it somewhere. The most we can say is that there is nothing improbable about the names Paul lists.102 Some of them may, however, be significant. For example, a Rufus (v. 13) is mentioned in Mark 15:21, apparently for no other reason than that he was known to Mark’s readers (he does nothing in Mark). Since our second Gospel is usually connected with Rome, we may well have a link here. Again, Paul mentions the household of Narcissus (v. 11). This is the name of a powerful freedman who was executed by Nero. According to custom his slaves would have passed to the Emperor, retaining the name of their former owner.103 There may be a similar link with Aristobulus (v. 10), for a grandson of Herod the Great bearing this name died in Rome. He was a friend of the Emperor Claudius, and his slaves may well have passed into imperial possession.
3. Aquila and Prisca (v. 3) seem to have been wealthy (they had a house large enough for a church to meet in it) and to have travelled widely.104 They went to Ephesus with Paul (Acts 18:18), and they were there later on (1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19).105 Indeed, the last time they are mentioned they are at Ephesus, and that in both Acts and the Pauline writings (Acts 18:26; 2 Tim. 4:19). The church in their house there (1 Cor. 16:19) seems to indicate settled residence. It is this link with Ephesus which as much as anything inclines some to hold that the chapter was originally destined for that city.106
But this couple can be held to support Rome. They left the capital city when Claudius expelled the Jews (Acts 18:2), and there seems no reason why they should not have returned after that Emperor’s death.107 In fact, the expulsion of the Jews may be the explanation of Paul’s knowledge of some, at least, of those mentioned in this chapter. They would have scattered widely, and he would have had the opportunity of meeting some of them. There is nothing improbable about his sending greetings to any he knew who had now returned to Rome. Many Jews lived in Rome early in Nero’s reign, and some were well accepted at court.
4. Ampliatus (v. 8) is a name found on a very ancient tomb in the cemetery of Domitilla which may possibly go back as far as the end of the first century. Some hold this to be the very Ampliatus Paul mentions. This seems to be going too far (the name was not uncommon). But at least the name is connected with Christian circles in Rome at an early date.
Perhaps we should also notice the tradition of the Roman church which links Nereus and Achilleus with Domitilla, who was punished as a Christian under her cousin, the Emperor Domitian. The tradition goes back to the fourth century and may be older. It is not likely to depend on Romans since the two names are always linked in the tradition, as they are not in Romans.108 But it is not conclusive.
All this means that there is nothing unlikely in Paul’s knowing such a group of people in Rome as those mentioned in Romans 16. Some of the names do seem to have connections with that city. Certainly they do not prove Ephesus.109
5. Epaenetus is called “the first-fruits of Asia for Christ” (v. 5). Such a man, it is said, is more likely to be in Ephesus than in Rome. But this can be put too strongly. People travelled widely at this time, and it is not unlikely for someone to move from the province of Asia to the capital, Rome. In fact, something like this may be necessary if there is to be point in mentioning that he was Asia’s firstfruits. In Ephesus this would be well known and scarcely worth mentioning. Not so at Rome.
6. The commendation of Phoebe (v. 1) would be more natural to a church Paul knew than to one where he had never been. To which it may fairly be retorted that Paul’s commendation would carry weight anywhere. He was not exactly unknown in the early church.110
7. The greeting in 16:16, “All the churches of Christ greet you”, looks like a warm expression of fellowship from the representatives of the churches gathered with Paul at the time he wrote his letter (Acts 20:3–4). It would be natural for the assembled provincials to send greetings to the church in the capital. But what would the words mean if written to Ephesus? Especially so as Ephesus was represented among Paul’s companions (Trophimus, Acts 20:4, was an Ephesian, Acts 21:29; possibly Tychicus also).
8. The antinomianism of 16:17ff. seems more pronounced than anything in other parts of Romans. It is urged that it is more likely to be found in Asia than in Rome, and further that there are resemblances in Paul’s words to the Ephesian elders (Acts 20:28ff.). It is also said that there are points of contact with the false teaching mentioned in 1 and 2 Timothy and that this should be located at Ephesus. It is not unlike that encountered in Colossians, a church in the same region. Again, Romans has a good deal to say about the relationship between Jews and Gentiles (who apparently had some difficulty in adjusting to one another), but there is nothing Jewish here. The tone is also said to be different from that earlier in the epistle (which is eirenic) and more akin to that in letters to churches of Paul’s own foundation, like Galatians and Corinthians.
But all this is highly subjective. As a matter of fact we have no way at all of knowing how well the words applied in either place. Paul is speaking of a danger, a threat, not something that was in actual existence. Such a warning would be as conceivable addressed to Rome as to Ephesus. It is also true that from time to time in this epistle Paul clearly has in mind unethical tendencies (cf. 6:1–4, 15ff.; 8:5–13; 12:2). It would, moreover, be not in the least surprising if when he was warning against possible false teaching in one place (Rome) he were to couch his warning in terms derived from false teaching with which he was familiar in another place (Ephesus). The difference in tone should not be exaggerated. Warm appreciation is expressed in verse 19. And Gamble draws attention to Carl Bjerkelund’s examination of the way the exhortation in verses 17–20 is introduced. He shows that it “is not an expression of authoritative demand or admonition, but a fixed epistolary element which functions as a polite, ‘urbane’ expression of request. It carries no polemical import, and appears to be used by Paul when his authority is not in question.”111
9. 15:33 Looks like the End of a Letter.112 Perhaps. But none of Paul’s other letters ends like this. And for that matter 15:13 looks as much like the end of a letter as does 15:33. Other possible “ends” could doubtless be picked out.
10. The Character of Chapter 16. The objection of Hans Lietzmann is often quoted: “A letter consisting almost entirely of greetings may be intelligible in the age of the picture-postcard; for any earlier period it is a monstrosity.”113 Writing a letter in antiquity was not as easy as at present; thus when anyone did write he had something more serious to say than simply to pass on greetings. If it be retorted that an earlier part of the letter probably existed but that this is all that survives, it must be countered that this is to bolster up one hypothesis with another. There is no evidence of such a letter. It would be curious for the letter to be lost and the greetings to survive.114
Lietzmann’s objection is not quite as strong as it seems, for there are examples of short letters with extensive greetings.115 We must, however, notice the kind of letter. If chapter 16 is an entire letter, then it is a letter of commendation of Phoebe. But greetings are almost invariably absent from letters of introduction.116 “Of the eighty-three letters collected by Kim only three contain greetings (… all third and fourth century), and these have only one greetings-phrase each. Also, Cicero’s letters of recommendation characteristically lack greetings.”117
But if letters of commendation do not normally contain greetings, letters written for other purposes often contain commendations.118 Paul himself does this sort of thing elsewhere (e.g., 1 Cor. 16:10–11, 15–18). Gamble concludes: “Thus in the secular letter tradition and in Paul’s own letters we have precise analogies for the commendation in Rom 16:1–2 in form, content, and position within the letter’s conclusion. We are thereby warned against detaching ch. 16 from the larger Roman letter on the grounds that it has the character of a note of recommendation. That vss. 1–2 have the character imposes no necessity and creates no likelihood that the chapter was originally independent.”119 The character of chapter 16, then, is such as to make it likely that from the beginning it belonged at the end of this letter.
11. Rhetorical Structure. We noted earlier that Wilhelm Wuellner argues that the rhetorical character of Romans is very significant. When he comes to deal with the constituent parts of the writing, he takes 15:14–16:23 as the peroration. He can say, “It is my thesis that the pathos section of the peroration in Romans extends from 15:30 to 16:23.”120 That such a position can be taken up shows from another angle that chapter 16 is not self-evidently detachable from chapter 15.
12. Epistolary Structure. Gamble has an important section in which he examines the endings of the Pauline letters. A good deal of attention has been given to the openings, but not so much to the endings. Gamble shows that the Pauline letters regularly end with the following sequence:
1. Hortatory remarks
2. Wish of peace
3. Greetings
3a. Greeting with the kiss
4. Grace-benediction121
If the letter ended at 14:23 or at 15:33, the Pauline pattern has been disrupted. The ending sequence which is invariable elsewhere in Paul has then been abandoned on this occasion. Why? The other side of this argument is that Romans 16 contains the normal Pauline pattern for a letter ending (though with some minor problems like the possible double grace-benediction, vv. 20b, 24). But it does not comply with what we normally find in a complete letter.122 Its form indicates that, if it is not the end of Romans, it is the end of some other letter. Which?123 We can sum up the position in this way. We have:
1. Romans 1–16, a Pauline letter with a Pauline ending
2. Romans 16, a normal Pauline ending
3. A manuscript tradition in which Romans 16 is invariably attached to Romans 1–15.
It is not easy to escape the conclusion that Romans 16 is the intended and original conclusion to the letter.124
13. The laudatory character of the greetings may be significant. Whenever Paul describes someone to whom he sends a greeting, it is always complimentary (e.g., 16:4, 6, 7). This would result in the individual’s being accorded respect in the community. But it also classed the person with Paul. The link might be expected to cause such people to be his advocates. “That epistolary greetings should be turned to this effect would hardly be comprehensible if they were addressed to a community whose recognition of himself Paul could have presumed. Only if addressed to the Roman church, where such recognition could not be assumed—a fact acknowledged in Paul’s cautious and apologetic approach to it (15:14–21)—does the peculiar character of the greetings of Rom 16 make any sense.”125
From all this it seems that we should regard chapter 16 as an integral part of Romans. It is true that some have put forward arguments of greater or less force to indicate that it should be seen as a separate letter or part of another letter. But the evidence for such views is not convincing. The presumption must always be that a writing that comes down to us as part of an ancient document is to be seen as part of that document until the contrary is proved.126 In this case sufficient evidence is not forthcoming, while on the contrary there are some strong indications that chapter 16 belongs with chapters 1–15.