C. Greetings to various friends (16:3–16)
C. Greetings to various friends (16:3–16)
Phoebe’s commendation is followed by a series of personal greetings to people mentioned by name.
From this series of greetings it has been widely argued that Romans 16 was intended not for Rome but for Ephesus—that it was for Ephesus that Phoebe was bound and (more particularly) that the friends to whom Paul sends greetings lived in Ephesus.
That a separate letter to the church in Ephesus has somehow been tacked on to a letter addressed to Rome is highly improbable. The idea of an ancient letter consisting almost entirely of greetings is not such a monstrosity as was once thought by H. Lietzmann. But if chapter 16 is regarded as a separate letter of commendation, it must be recognized that greetings were habitually absent from such letters.9 This consideration would not weigh so heavily, indeed, against the view that Paul sent a copy of Romans 1–15 to his friends at Ephesus,10 and appended to it a note of commendation and a number of personal greetings.
However, ‘possession is nine points of the law’, and since this chapter comes at the end of a letter which was manifestly addressed to the Christians of Rome, it is natural to suppose that this chapter was equally addressed to them, unless very weighty reasons to the contrary can be adduced.
What then are the principal arguments for postulating an Ephesian destination for Romans 16?
i. In this chapter Paul sends personal greetings to twenty-six individuals and five households or ‘house-churches’. Is it probable that he knew so many people in a city which he had never visited? We should think rather of one of the cities with which he was well acquainted. Corinth can be ruled out, because the letter (including, in particular, chapter 16) was written from Corinth; but Ephesus (where he had recently spent between two and three years) is clearly indicated, especially for the two following reasons.
ii. The first persons to whom Paul sends greetings here are Prisca (Priscilla) and Aquila (verse 3). When we last heard of them, either in Acts (18:26) or in Paul’s correspondence (1 Cor. 16:19), they were resident in Ephesus, where they had a church in their house, as they have here. In the absence of any hint to the contrary, we may presume they were still in Ephesus.11
iii. The next person to be greeted by name is Epaenetus, ‘the first convert in Asia for Christ’ (verse 5). Paul’s first convert in the province of Asia would naturally be looked for in Ephesus, not in Rome.
iv. In addition to these personal greetings, the admonitory passage in verses 17–20 has also been thought to point to an Ephesian destination. It is unlike the rest of the letter in substance and style. In it Paul seems to depart from his policy of not addressing the Roman church with the note of apostolic authority which he used when writing to churches which he had founded himself. Besides, the dissensions referred to in this paragraph do not correspond to anything in the life of the Roman church which could be gathered from other parts of the letter. Elsewhere in the letter the only possibility of tension within the church that is hinted at is that which might arise if the Gentile members began to adopt an air of superiority over their Jewish brethren (11:13–24). On the other hand, the present admonition has points of affinity with Paul’s words of exhortation and foreboding to the elders of the Ephesian church in Acts 20:28–31. We may compare the dissensions and false teaching at Ephesus mentioned in the two letters to Timothy—not to speak of the heresy which, according to the letter to the Colossians, was finding an entrance among Christians in another region of the province of Asia.
What now can be said in favour of the Roman destination of this chapter, over and above the initial presumption that it was sent to the same people as the rest of the letter to which it is appended?
i. Such a list of greetings would be exceptional in a letter written to a church with which Paul was well acquainted. If this chapter was intended for Ephesus, we can envisage the meeting of the church at which it was read aloud. Those present would hear Paul’s greetings read out to twenty-six of their number by name. But Paul certainly knew more than twenty-six members of a church in whose midst he had spent such a long time. What would the others think? Each of them would ask, ‘Why leave me out?’ But in a letter written to a church in which he was personally unknown Paul might well send greetings to friends whom he had met elsewhere in the course of his apostolic service, and who were now resident in Rome. If he mentioned them by name, the others would not feel aggrieved at being omitted, because they would not expect to be included. In the letter to the Colossians, which was also written to a church which Paul had never visited, similar greetings are sent to a few individuals—only a few, because it did not lie on a main road and was not nearly such an important place as Rome. But Rome was the capital of the world: all roads led to Rome, and it is not surprising that many people whom Paul had come to know in other places should in the mean time have made their way to Rome. In particular, the death of the Emperor Claudius in October, AD 54, probably meant for all practical purposes the lapsing of his edict of five years earlier, expelling the Jews from Rome. If there was a general return of Jews to Rome about this time, Jewish Christians would certainly be among them. Prisca and Aquila, who had been compelled to leave Rome by the edict of AD 49 (Acts 18:2), would have gone back in AD 54 or shortly afterwards, leaving managers, perhaps, in charge of the Corinthian and Ephesian branches of their business (as they may have left one in charge of their Roman branch when they had to leave the capital). Trades-people like them led very mobile lives in those days, and there is nothing improbable or unnatural about their moving back and forth in this way between Rome, Corinth and Ephesus.12
Epaenetus may well have attached himself to Prisca and Aquila and gone with them when they returned to Rome. On their return to Rome, they would keep in touch with Paul and, in particular, let him know how the Christian cause was faring there.
ii. A number of the names in verses 7–15 are better attested at Rome than at Ephesus.13 This is largely because many more inscriptions are available from Rome than from Ephesus; and in any case it is for the most part the names and not the persons that are attested. Details are given in the notes below; readers can weigh the evidence for themselves. Perhaps the strongest case can be made out for members of ‘the family of Narcissus’ in verse 11; we know of a ‘family of Narcissus’ in Rome at this very time. Rufus (verse 13) was a commoner name at Rome than at Ephesus, but if this Rufus was the Rufus of Mark 15:21, it was probably in neither of these cities that he received his name. Yet the Rufus of Mark 15:21 seems to have been well known by name in the Roman church; we cannot say that there was not a Rufus in the Ephesian church, but we do not know that there was one. On the whole, a study of these names inclines the balance of probability in favour of Rome.
iii. ‘All the churches of Christ’ which send their greetings in verse 16 would be the Gentile churches whose delegates were joining Paul at this time to convey their churches’ contributions to the Jerusalem relief fund.14 It would be a particularly happy thought to send these churches’ greetings to Rome. It might indeed be said that it would be a happy thought to send their greetings to Ephesus, but since Ephesus was one of the churches represented—by Trophimus and possibly Tychicus (Acts 20:4)—there would not be the same point in sending their greetings there.
iv. As for the admonition of verses 17–20, it would not be surprising if, after long self-restraint in addressing a church not of his own foundation, Paul broke out at last in an urgent warning against certain trouble-makers of a type with which he was only too familiar in his own mission-field. It would be too much to expect that they would not visit Rome (if they had not already done so) and try to win acceptance for their teaching there. Paul would regard it as his plain duty to put the Roman Christians on their guard against such people; moreover, his own reception in Rome could be placed in jeopardy if they preceded him there and gained a favourable hearing.15
3. Greet Prisca and Aquila. Paul says ‘Prisca’ (cf. 1 Cor. 16:19; 2 Tim. 4:19), while Luke uses the more familiar form of her name, Priscilla. ‘Luke regularly uses the language of conversation, in which the diminutive forms were usual; and so he speaks of Priscilla, Sopatros and Silas always, though Paul speaks of Prisca, Sosipatros and Silvanus.’16 Both Paul and Luke generally name Prisca (Priscilla) before her husband; perhaps hers was the more impressive personality. Paul first met them in Corinth, soon after their enforced departure from Rome (Acts 18:2); they were probably Christians already, for Paul nowhere implies that they were converts of his.
4. Who risked their necks for my life. One can only speculate when and where this happened; it may have been during one of the critical phases of Paul’s ministry at Ephesus.
5. Epaenetus … the first convert in Asia for Christ. Lit. ‘the first-fruits of Asia for Christ’ (cf. 1 Cor. 16:15, where Stephanas and his family are similarly called ‘the first converts of Achaia’). On Epaenetus in Rome, see p. 270.
6. Mary, who has worked hard among you. This has been thought to point to an Ephesian destination. Paul would know who did outstanding service in Ephesus; how could he know who had ‘worked hard’ among the Roman Christians? He certainly had some sources of information about the Roman church (cf. 1:8–9): Prisca and Aquila could tell him about its earlier days and now, since their return to Rome, they were probably in regular communication with him. Beyond that we can but speculate; we have no other reference to this Mary (one of six bearers of that name in the New Testament).
7. Andronicus and Junias. The second of these names might be either masculine (Junias, a shorter form of Junianus) or feminine (Junia, as in AV). But, since there seems to be no certain occurrence of the form Junias, the feminine Junia is to be preferred. This couple (perhaps husband and wife) were Jewish by birth (Paul calls them his ‘kinsfolk’); they had shared one of Paul’s frequent imprisonments (cf. 2 Cor. 11:23), possibly in Ephesus. Moreover, they were ‘of note among the apostles’, which probably means that they were not merely well known to the apostles but were apostles themselves (in the wider, Pauline, sense of the word), and eminent ones at that. They had been Christians from a very early date, since before Paul’s own conversion. They may have been among the Hellenists of Acts 6:1 (their names suggest that they were Hellenists rather than ‘Hebrews’); their title to apostleship was probably based on their having seen the risen Christ (cf. 1 Cor. 15:7, ‘all the apostles’).
8. Ampliatus. The name is common in Roman inscriptions of the period, and is found repeatedly as borne by members of the imperial household. A branch of the gens Aurelia bore this cognomen. Christian members of this branch of the family are buried in the Cemetery of Domitilla on the Via Ardeatina, one of the oldest Christian burying-places in Rome, the beginnings of which go back to the end of the first century (see comment on verse 15, p. 275). One tomb in that cemetery, decorated with paintings in a very early style, bears the inscription AMPLIAT in uncials of the late first or early second century.
9. Urbanus. This name, which means ‘belonging to the urbs’ or ‘city’ (i.e. Rome), is by its very nature specially common in Rome. But it was not in Rome that Urbanus served as Paul’s fellow worker in Christ, unless the point is that he served the same Lord in Rome as Paul served elsewhere.
Stachys. This name, meaning ‘ear’ (of grain), is not common; one or two of its occurrences are in association with the imperial household.
10. Apelles. A name sufficiently common among the Jews of Rome for Horace to use it as a typical Jewish name: ‘credat Iudaeus Apella.’17 One notable bearer of the name was a tragic actor from Ascalon to whom at one time the Emperor Gaius showed signal marks of favour.18 It is found in Roman inscriptions, both in relation to the imperial household and otherwise.
Those who belong to the family of Aristobulus. Who this Aristobulus was cannot be determined with certainty. Lightfoot suggests his identification with a brother of Herod Agrippa I, who lived in Rome as a private citizen and, like his brother, enjoyed the friendship of Claudius. If he bequeathed his property to the emperor (a far from improbable supposition), his slaves and freedmen would have been distinguished from other members of the imperial household as Aristobuliani (the Latin equivalent of Paul’s hoi ek tōn Aristoboulou). In the light of this suggested identification of Aristobulus with a member of the Herod family, is it a coincidence that the next name in Paul’s list is Herodion?
11. My kinsman Herodion. ‘My kinsman’ probably indicates that he was of Jewish birth (cf. verse 7).
The family of Narcissus. Calvin (ad loc.) and others have identified this Narcissus with Tiberius Claudius Narcissus, a wealthy freedman of the Emperor Tiberius, who exercised great influence under Claudius but was executed by order of Nero’s mother Agrippina soon after Nero’s accession in AD 54.19 His goods being confiscated, his slaves would become imperial property and would be distinguished from other groups in the imperial household by the designation Narcissiani. If the identification is sustained, this greeting would be addressed to Christians among those Narcissiani.
12. Tryphaena and Tryphosa. Probably near relatives or sisters, and quite possibly twins, to whom it was not uncommon to give names derived from the same root. Of the two names Tryphosa is the more frequently found, but both occur in Roman inscriptions in connection with the imperial household and otherwise. The names, however, have Anatolian associations: Tryphaena appears in the apocryphal second-century Acts of Paul (chapters 27–43) as the name of a queen who showed kindness to Thecla at Pisidian Antioch (there was a historical Queen Tryphaena, related to the Emperor Claudius, mother of Polemon II who, at the time when this letter was written, was king of Pontus and Cilicia).
Persis. This name (meaning ‘Persian woman’) appears in Greek and Latin inscriptions at Rome and elsewhere as that of a slave or freedwoman, but not in connection with the imperial household.
13. Rufus. This name (meaning ‘red’, ‘red-haired’), a word of Italic rather than Latin origin, was so common in Rome and Italy that there would be little point in discussing it were it not for two points of interest: first, the mention of Rufus in Mark 15:21 as one of the two sons of Simon of Cyrene, and second, the present reference to the mother of this Rufus as being (in Paul’s words) his mother and mine. Mark, writing his Gospel in the first instance for Christians in Rome,20 identifies Simon of Cyrene for his readers a generation after the incident in which Simon figures as cross-bearer by saying in effect: ‘You will know which Simon I mean if I tell you that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus.’ He thus implies that there was a Rufus well known in Roman Christian circles in the sixties, and it is tempting to identify him with Paul’s Rufus, eminent in the Lord (Gk. eklektos, ‘chosen’, naturally acquires the meaning ‘choice’ and hence ‘eminent’, ‘outstanding’).
But if this Rufus was the son of Simon of Cyrene, when did his mother prove a mother to Paul? One might hazard the guess that it was when Barnabas fetched Paul from Tarsus to become his colleague in the ministry at Syrian Antioch (Acts 11:25–26). Simeon surnamed Niger (‘dark-skinned’), one of the other teachers of the church there (Acts 13:1), has been identified with Simon of Cyrene; if Paul lodged with him we can well envisage the wife of Simeon (or Simon) playing the part of a mother to their disinherited guest.
14. Hermes. As the name of the god of good luck this was exceptionally common as a slave-name.
Patrobas. Abbreviated from Patrobius, a name borne by a wealthy freedman of Nero. Lightfoot (Philippians, p. 179) suggested that Paul’s Patrobas ‘might well have been a dependant of this powerful freedman’.
Hermas. An abbreviation of some such name as Hermagoras, Hermodorus or Hermogenes, and a very common name. A couple of generations later it was borne by the Roman Christian (a slave) who wrote the popular allegory entitled The Shepherd.
15. Philologus, Julia, Nereus and his sister. One should render literally (with AV, RV, NEB) ‘Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister’, which might suggest that Julia was sister to Philologus as Nereus’s sister was to him. Another possibility is that Julia was Philologus’s wife; her name implies some kind of association with the imperial household. The name Philologus appears more than once in association with the imperial household.
Nereus. Roman ecclesiastical tradition from the fourth century associates Nereus (and his companion Achilleus) with Flavia Domitilla, a Christian lady of noble birth who was exiled by her uncle Domitian in AD 95 to the island of Pandateria, off the Campanian coast, but released after his death in the following year. It is from her that the Cemetery of Domitilla (see comment on verse 8, pp. 272–273) takes its name.
Olympas. An abbreviated form of Olympiodorus.
16. Greet one another with a holy kiss. Cf. 1 Corinthians 16:20; 1 Thessalonians 5:26 (in 1 Pet. 5:14 it is called ‘the kiss of love’). The ‘kiss of peace’, which plays a part to this day in the liturgy of the Eastern Church, is first mentioned as a regular feature of Christian worship in Justin Martyr’s First Apology, 65 (‘when we have ceased from our prayers, we greet one another with a kiss’).
The name of Peter is conspicuously absent from those to whom greetings are sent. If these greetings were sent to Rome, the absence of his name suggests that he was not in Rome at this time.
All the churches of Christ salute you. A reference, probably, to those Gentile churches whose representatives were about to set out with Paul for Jerusalem and were with him at the time of writing (see pp. 270f.). Some of those representatives are named in Acts 20:4. At a time when one very important phase of Paul’s ministry was being concluded, he might well send greetings from all the churches associated with that phase of his ministry to a church which not only occupied a unique position in the world (as the Roman church did) but also, in Paul’s intention, was to play a crucial part as he embarked on a new phase.21