Original Meaning

Commendation of a Prominent Christian Worker (16:1–2)

LETTERS OF COMMENDATION were important in the ancient world. People who traveled in an age with few public facilities (such as hotels or restaurants) depended on the assistance of people they had sometimes never met for their needs. Phoebe is apparently going to be traveling to Rome, and so Paul commends to the church this “sister” (adelphe, rare in the New Testament as a description of believer [1 Cor. 7:15; 9:5; Philem. 2; James 2:15]).

But Phoebe is more than a sister; she is also a “servant [diakonos] of the church in Cenchrea.” Diakonos can be applied to any Christian, called to “serve” God and his people. This may be its sense here.1 But the addition “of the church in Cenchrea” makes it more likely that Phoebe holds an official position in the church there. Phoebe is probably a “deacon,” serving the church by ministering to the financial and material needs of the believers (see esp. 1 Tim. 3:8–12; cf. also Phil. 1:1).2

Paul gives a further hint of Phoebe’s function in the church at the end of verse 2, where he calls her a prostatis “to many people, including me.” Prostatis is derived from a verb that means both to care for, give aid to, and to direct, preside over. The former meaning is assumed in the NIV translation, “she has been a great help.” Others argue for the latter meaning, viewing Phoebe as the “leader” of the community.3 Perhaps the best suggestion is to give prostatis the meaning it often has in secular Greek, “patron, benefactor.”4 Phoebe was probably a wealthy businesswoman, who used her wealth to support the church and its missionaries (like Paul). Her ministry in the church and beneficence to the church’s workers make her worthy of a Christian greeting and any assistance the Roman church can give her.

Bridging Contexts

BRINGING THIS TEXT into the twenty-first century requires an approach similar to the one we outlined for 15:14–33. The explicit intention of the author, Paul, is to commend Phoebe and to convey greetings to the first-century church at Rome. These points are simply not relevant to our day. Faced with this dilemma, some interpreters resort to application by analogy: As Paul endorsed traveling Christians, so should we; as he greeted and commended fellow Christians, so should we. But nothing in this text suggests Paul is making his epistolary conventions a pattern for others to follow. Even if there were hermeneutical justification, the points are so banal as hardly to require exposition.

A more productive approach, as we suggested above, is to seek principles expressed or hinted at within the text that govern what Paul is saying. A text is often as interesting for what it assumes as for what it explicitly teaches. In 16:1–16, Paul touches on or implies three facets of the early Christian church that we can learn something from: its social composition, its organization, and the importance of women. Each, but particularly the last, requires some initial exploration here as a basis for any application.

Social composition of the early church. While the average believer does not find much of interest in the interminable list of names in Romans 16:3–15, the historian of early Christianity does. To the historian the names reveal a lot. Names in the ancient world conveyed data about the person. They were not mere handles chosen on the basis of euphony or fad. At the minimum, names usually enable us to pin down a person’s ethnic origin. They can also indicate social class or occupation. “Onesimus,” for instance, the escaped slave Paul writes about in Philemon, means “useful”; it was the kind of name often given to a slave, in the hopes that he would live up to it.

The historian Peter Lampe has done a thorough study of the names in Romans 16.15 He concludes that most of the people whom Paul mentions are Gentiles or freedmen or are descendants of slaves and freedmen (freedman is the term given the class of freed slaves in the Roman empire). Note too that Paul specifically mentions at least two groups of slaves: the household (servants) of Aristobulus (v. 10) and those of Narcissus (v. 11).

The information of Romans 16 applies, of course, only to that church. We cannot extrapolate from it to other churches that may have been very different. But what little evidence we have suggests that most of the early Christians came from the “lower” classes. As Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 1:26, “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.” This is not to say that other classes were not represented. The ease with which Priscilla and Aquila moved around the eastern Mediterranean and the fact that they hosted a church in their house suggests they were relatively wealthy.

Such information about the social composition of the church can be helpful to us because all people—Christians included—function within and are strongly influenced by social structures. New Testament scholars have given a lot of attention to this dimension of the early church in recent years. What we learn from such investigations can help us translate the explicit information of the text from the first century social context to ours.

Organization of the early church. What 16:1–16 reveals about the organization of the church is that it was apparently loose. Paul refers to at least three, and perhaps five, house churches (vv. 5, 14, 15 are clear; the “households” mentioned in vv. 10 and 11 may also represent house churches). The Christian community reflects the loose organization of the Jewish community, which was apparently also broken up into many independent synagogues.16 It was probably the case, for instance, that certain house churches were composed entirely of believers “weak in faith” and others of believers “strong in faith” (see comments on 14:1–15:13). Paul’s plea for acceptance of one another, then, is seeking reconciliation among various “churches” in Rome. We will suggest possible implications of this below.

Women in the early church. Of the twenty-seven Christians Paul greets or commends in verses 1–15, ten (more than one-third) are women. Six of them (Phoebe [vv. 1–2], Priscilla [v. 3], Junias [v. 7], Tryphena, [v. 12], Tryphosa [v. 12], and Persis [v. 12]) are commended for their labor “in the Lord.” Junia is a “commissioned missionary” (apostolos; see comments on v. 7), and Phoebe is a benefactor and deacon of the church. What conclusions can we draw from these numbers? We can only answer that question after setting these references into the larger context of the New Testament teaching about “women in the church.”

In what is a minefield of controversy, everybody at least agrees on three things: (1) women made up a significant part of the early Christian church (note the list above); (2) women were given the same access to God that men enjoyed (e.g., Gal. 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7); and (3) women engaged in significant ministry (see again the list above). What continues to divide believers is the extent to which the new covenant erased gender role distinctions in the home and in the church.

Our text does not touch the issue of the home, so we will leave it aside here. But we can hardly come to final conclusions about the implications of Romans 16 for the role of women in the church without some sense of the teaching of the New Testament as a whole. We may never isolate one text apart from the larger canon in deciding its meaning. Especially is this important in a text like Romans 16, which does not directly teach about the role of women but makes indirect references to it. To be sure, such indirect evidence is important, giving us a window into the way the church actually operated. The importance of such evidence should not be unduly minimized. But it must finally be integrated with clear teaching passages.

Scholars are so divided over what the New Testament as a whole teaches on this matter that we simply have no consensus or agreed-on foundation on which to build our interpretation of Romans 16. All I can do here is briefly delineate my own understanding of New Testament teaching.17 I do not think that the New Testament removes all restrictions on the ministry of women. Paul’s claim that the husband is “head” (kephale) over his wife involves a claim that the husband has the role of loving, sacrificial leader—a role parallel to Christ’s with respect to the church (Eph. 5:22–24). The wife responds to this relationship by joyful submission to the leadership of her husband (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1–6).

Since the church imitates the family in the spiritual sphere, Paul extends this relationship of man and woman in marriage to the church. Women, he claims are not to “teach or to have authority” over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Paul effectively, then, prohibits women from ministries such as preaching or serving as “ruling elders.” Accepting the Bible as a single book with one ultimate author means that I must bring these results into my study of Romans 16. But open and accurate understanding of the Bible also means that I must allow Romans 16 to modify my view of the biblical evidence. But we are moving into the area of contemporary significance (see below).

Contemporary Significance

THE SOCIAL DIMENSION of the church. The social composition of the ancient Roman church is of interest to the historian and exegete, but I am not sure that it has much significance for the contemporary church. To argue, for instance, that our own churches should have the same social composition as the Roman church would be to indulge in the worst form of analogical application. It is simply not always the case that “as it was then, so it must be now.”

Nevertheless, it may, perhaps, be useful to remind ourselves that God has a special concern for the poor, for the downtrodden, for the helpless. This point emerges again and again in Luke’s Gospel and is reaffirmed in the New Testament letters (see esp. James 2:5–6; 5:1–11). Many of the Roman Christians, as we have noted, were slaves or former slaves. It is often those who feel the most alienated in our world that are open to find status in the world to come.

Sociologists often explain virtually all religious affiliation along such lines. But we need not succumb to a reductionistic sociological explanation of religious affection to recognize the germ of truth in what they are teaching. The church, we may therefore infer, must be a place that intentionally sets out to offer solace to those in our world who most need it. Ministry to the poor, the down and out, and the homeless should be high on the agenda of the church’s priorities.

The organization of the church. We must also be cautious in drawing conclusions from Romans 16 in this area. Once again, the fact that the Roman community was divided into house churches does not mean that the contemporary church should adopt a similar structure. Paul does not teach that the community should be divided into house churches. Indeed, house churches were probably a physical necessity in a time before church buildings existed and when other public buildings of any size would not have been available for Christians.

But there is one point we can draw from this circumstance, even if it is a bit tangential. If the Roman church met in a number of separate locations and rarely, perhaps never, met together in one place, and if Paul’s plea for mutual acceptance in Romans 14:1–15:13 was directed to these churches, there may here be indirect encouragement for local churches to do a better job of getting along with one another. Local churches, even when they believe almost all the same things, tend all too easily to be in competition with each other—a competition that often leads to mutual distrust and even criticism. Churches try to justify their own existence and raise their own status by blackballing others. Paul would urge us to recognize each other even if we disagree about the nonessentials of the faith.

Women in the church. We can turn, now, to the third matter of potential significance for the contemporary church: the significance of women in Romans 16. Before we enter into the controversial part of our conclusions, we should emphasize two points that the text makes clear. (1) Women were an important and public part of the Roman Christian community. The term public in this assertion is especially important. In many religions in the ancient world, women were allowed to participate only by proxy—through their husbands—or were relegated to the outer fringes of worship. Romans 16 suggests, and the rest of the New Testament confirms, that the early church was different. Paul recognizes women along with men, implying their equality in the community and their participation together in worship.

(2) Women engaged in significant ministry. I cringe when I hear the modern debate put in terms of women and ministry—as if there is doubt about whether women can be ministers. Our unfortunate restriction of that term to a particular ministry (e.g., head pastor) blinds us to the New Testament insistence that every believer is a minister, that is, a servant of Christ and the church, with important contributions to make to the life of the body. Those of us who conclude that the New Testament imposes restrictions on certain ministries of women should take the lead in honoring women in ministry and in seeking to involve them in all the ministries that they are free to engage in. Much chauvinism still lurks in the corners of our churches. Women are too often relegated to menial duties in the church when the body is aching because of the absence of gifted, trained women to teach other women, to counsel, to evangelize, to organize, and so on.

What, finally, of the contribution of Romans 16 to the continuing debate about restrictions on women in ministry? This text has become an important skirmish in the larger battle. On the one side are those who insist that the New Testament imposes no restrictions whatever on ministry for women. They frequently appeal to three points in Romans 16 to support their view. (1) The word “coworker(s)” (synergos) that Paul applies to women in verses 3 and 9 implies that these women had ministries equal in significance and nature to Paul’s; they were “leaders” in the church.18 (2) Phoebe was a prostatis, a “lead preacher” or “ruler” of the church in Cenchrea (vv. 1–2). (3) Junia was an apostle of the same nature and rank as Paul and the Twelve (v. 7).

As I have asserted above, I tend to think that the New Testament as a whole upholds restrictions on the ministry of women, barring them from teaching men or having authority over them (see 1 Tim. 2:12). The first two of the points just mentioned pose no problem for that view, but the third is more troublesome.

(1) When Paul calls women his “coworkers,” he is recognizing that they are carrying on ministries that are as significant as his own. But this word says nothing about the kind of ministry they are engaged in.

(2) Phoebe had an important ministry. But, as we argued in the Original Meaning section, Paul does not call her a pastor or leader but a deacon and benefactor. Both ministries (the former more “official” than the latter) were vital to the health of the church, but neither involved teaching or having authority over a man.

(3) But Junia is not so easy to explain away. Many scholars who take the position I hold on women in ministry insist that the name is Junias and that Paul is referring to a man. The lexical evidence, however, is decisively against this view. Indeed, the history of interpretation suggests that many interpreters have read their theology into this word. They assume that a woman cannot be an apostle, and so this individual cannot be a woman. Therefore, Romans 16:7 does, indeed, prove that women were “apostles” in the early church.

Must this verse force me to reconsider the position I hold? I should, of course, always go back to check the validity of my view against new findings. But in this case the situation is complicated by the different meanings that Paul gives to the term apostle (Gk. apostolos). As we argued above, it is at least as possible that Paul is using the word of these otherwise unknown early Christians in the sense of “commissioned missionary” rather than in the sense of “authoritative representative of Christ.”

My own conclusion, then, is that Romans 16 does not overturn the view I think the New Testament elsewhere teaches about women in ministry. But I want to underscore the fact that I both understand the exegetical arguments for different conclusions and have tremendous respect for many of those who make those arguments. My good friend and former colleague, Walt Liefeld, and I have discussed this issue at length privately and in public forums. We come to different conclusions on the matter (see his NIV Application Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus). But this in no way diminishes our regard for one another or the Christian fellowship we enjoy together.

Sadly, such relationships are not always maintained by people who take different sides on this issue. Moreover, I can sympathize with women especially who take a view such as mine as a personal threat to what they are doing. All I can do is plead that my own reading of the New Testament (always provisional) leads me to take the view that I do.

Original Meaning

Greetings (16:3–16)

PAUL OFTEN ENCOURAGES the Christians to whom he writes to “greet one another” (Phil. 4:21; Titus 3:15), sometimes by means of a “holy kiss” (Rom. 16:16a; 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26). But in verses 3–15 Paul also conveys individual greetings to a whole host of people. This feature is not unprecedented in his letters (cf. Col. 4:15; 2 Tim. 4:19), but its extent is. In addition to the reasons mentioned above and in the Introduction, a concern to establish good relations with the church in Rome may also have been a reason for all these greetings. Public recognition, as the letter was read aloud, of those Christians in Rome whom Paul already knew would help cement good relationships with the community.5 The passage falls into three sections of unequal length:

verses 3–15: a list of requests to greet specific individuals and groups

verse 16a: an exhortation for the Christians in Rome to greet one another

verse 16b: greetings to the Roman Christians from others

Priscilla6 and Aquila (vv. 3–4) are a well-known couple in the New Testament. Luke tells us that they came to Corinth after fleeing Rome because of Emperor Claudius’s expulsion order (Acts 18:2). Like Paul, they were tentmakers (18:3). They ministered with him in Corinth, then went to Ephesus and engaged in ministry there (18:18), where they were instrumental in bringing Apollos to a better understanding of the faith (18:26). They apparently served with Paul in Ephesus for some time (1 Cor. 16:19) before returning to Rome after Claudius’s edict lapsed.

Paul commends Priscilla and Aquila as “fellow workers” (synergos), a term he uses regularly to refer to people who minister with him in all kinds of ways (see also vv. 9, 21; 2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25; 4:3; Col. 4:11; Philem. 1, 24). They have also “risked their lives” for Paul. When this happened we do not know, although it may have been at the time of the riot in Ephesus (Acts 19). They must have been fairly wealthy, owning a house large enough for a group of believers to meet there regularly for worship (a “house church”) (Rom. 16:5a).

Epenetus (v. 5b) is mentioned only here in the New Testament. Paul may have known him well, since he calls him “my dear friend” (agapetos, lit., “beloved one”). Or this term may have become somewhat formalized as a way of referring to any brother or sister in Christ. In any case, Paul remembers him well, since he was the “first convert to Christ” (aparche; lit., “the firstfruits”) in the province of Asia (which included Ephesus).

Mary was a common Jewish name, but it was also used by the Gentiles; thus, we cannot be sure of her ethnic background. Paul commends her for working “very hard for” the Roman Christians.

Andronicus and Junias (v. 7) are the most debated names in the list. They are relatives of Paul, they have been in prison with him (probably for the sake of the gospel), they were Christians before Paul, and they are “outstanding among the apostles.” Andronicus is clearly a male name. But who was Iounias? The NIV translation (see also RSV; NASB; TEV; NJB) assumes that this Greek form is a contraction of a masculine name, Junianus.7 But the Greek form can also reflect a feminine name, Junia (KJV; NRSV; REB). This may seem like a trivial matter, but the fact that this person is apparently called an “apostle” has turned this verse into a minor squall in the storm of controversy over women and ministry (see Contemporary Significance section). Here we simply note that the case for a feminine name is strong. Iounia (the feminine) is a common Greek name; the contracted form of Iounianos (the masculine) is apparently unknown.8

Andronicus and Junias, like Aquila and Priscilla (v. 3), were probably husband and wife. But how can Paul call them “apostles” (apostolos) when they were clearly not among the Twelve? Some interpreters have suggested that we translate “esteemed by the apostles,”9 but this is unlikely. More to the point is to remember that Paul uses apostolos in ways other than as a reference to the official, authoritative “twelve apostles.” It can refer to a “messenger” (2 Cor. 8:23; Phil. 2:25) or a “commissioned missionary” (1 Cor. 9:5–6; 15:7[?]; Gal. 2:9; Acts 14:4, 14). In this context, this latter meaning is the most likely.10

Ampliatus (v. 8), Urbanus (v. 9), and Apelles (v. 10a) are unknown apart from this list. “Those who belong to the household of Aristobulus” is a fair paraphrase of the Greek, which, literally translated, says simply “those of Aristobulus.” The reference is probably mainly to the slaves who work for Aristobulus. Aristobulus was the name of a brother of Herod Agrippa I who died in Rome in A.D. 48 or 49; those mentioned in this verse may be slaves who continued to serve in his household.11

“Herodion” (v. 11) is a name otherwise unattested. He was probably a freed slave who took the name of the Herodian family he served. Narcissus is also a freed slave—perhaps the same Narcissus who gained prominence as a servant of Emperor Claudius. We have no evidence that Narcissus had become a Christian, and the fact that he committed suicide shortly before Paul wrote Romans suggests he was not.12 Tryphena, Tryphosa, and Persis (v. 12) are mentioned only here in the New Testament. Rufus (v. 13), by contrast, may be the same Rufus referred to in Mark 15:21 as the son of Simon of Cyrene, who was forced to carry Jesus’ cross.13 We know nothing about those mentioned in Romans 16:14–15. The “brothers with him” (i.e., Hermas) in verse 14b probably refers to Christians who meet in Hermas’s house for worship, and Paul refers to another such house church at the end of verse 15.

Paul concludes his request for greetings with a catch-all request: “Greet one another with a holy kiss” (v. 16a). The kiss was a standard form of greeting in the ancient world generally and in Judaism in particular. By the time of the second century, the “kiss of peace” had become a part of the usual Christian liturgy. Perhaps Paul has in mind that the Roman Christians will conclude the public hearing of his letter with such a kiss.14

Paul ends this section by turning the tables and conveying greetings to the Roman Christians from “all the churches of Christ.” This is clearly a hyperbole; the reference is probably to those churches he has planted “from Jerusalem all the way around to Illyricum” (15:19).

Bridging Contexts

BRINGING THIS TEXT into the twenty-first century requires an approach similar to the one we outlined for 15:14–33. The explicit intention of the author, Paul, is to commend Phoebe and to convey greetings to the first-century church at Rome. These points are simply not relevant to our day. Faced with this dilemma, some interpreters resort to application by analogy: As Paul endorsed traveling Christians, so should we; as he greeted and commended fellow Christians, so should we. But nothing in this text suggests Paul is making his epistolary conventions a pattern for others to follow. Even if there were hermeneutical justification, the points are so banal as hardly to require exposition.

A more productive approach, as we suggested above, is to seek principles expressed or hinted at within the text that govern what Paul is saying. A text is often as interesting for what it assumes as for what it explicitly teaches. In 16:1–16, Paul touches on or implies three facets of the early Christian church that we can learn something from: its social composition, its organization, and the importance of women. Each, but particularly the last, requires some initial exploration here as a basis for any application.

Social composition of the early church. While the average believer does not find much of interest in the interminable list of names in Romans 16:3–15, the historian of early Christianity does. To the historian the names reveal a lot. Names in the ancient world conveyed data about the person. They were not mere handles chosen on the basis of euphony or fad. At the minimum, names usually enable us to pin down a person’s ethnic origin. They can also indicate social class or occupation. “Onesimus,” for instance, the escaped slave Paul writes about in Philemon, means “useful”; it was the kind of name often given to a slave, in the hopes that he would live up to it.

The historian Peter Lampe has done a thorough study of the names in Romans 16.15 He concludes that most of the people whom Paul mentions are Gentiles or freedmen or are descendants of slaves and freedmen (freedman is the term given the class of freed slaves in the Roman empire). Note too that Paul specifically mentions at least two groups of slaves: the household (servants) of Aristobulus (v. 10) and those of Narcissus (v. 11).

The information of Romans 16 applies, of course, only to that church. We cannot extrapolate from it to other churches that may have been very different. But what little evidence we have suggests that most of the early Christians came from the “lower” classes. As Paul puts it in 1 Corinthians 1:26, “Brothers, think of what you were when you were called. Not many of you were wise by human standards; not many were influential; not many were of noble birth.” This is not to say that other classes were not represented. The ease with which Priscilla and Aquila moved around the eastern Mediterranean and the fact that they hosted a church in their house suggests they were relatively wealthy.

Such information about the social composition of the church can be helpful to us because all people—Christians included—function within and are strongly influenced by social structures. New Testament scholars have given a lot of attention to this dimension of the early church in recent years. What we learn from such investigations can help us translate the explicit information of the text from the first century social context to ours.

Organization of the early church. What 16:1–16 reveals about the organization of the church is that it was apparently loose. Paul refers to at least three, and perhaps five, house churches (vv. 5, 14, 15 are clear; the “households” mentioned in vv. 10 and 11 may also represent house churches). The Christian community reflects the loose organization of the Jewish community, which was apparently also broken up into many independent synagogues.16 It was probably the case, for instance, that certain house churches were composed entirely of believers “weak in faith” and others of believers “strong in faith” (see comments on 14:1–15:13). Paul’s plea for acceptance of one another, then, is seeking reconciliation among various “churches” in Rome. We will suggest possible implications of this below.

Women in the early church. Of the twenty-seven Christians Paul greets or commends in verses 1–15, ten (more than one-third) are women. Six of them (Phoebe [vv. 1–2], Priscilla [v. 3], Junias [v. 7], Tryphena, [v. 12], Tryphosa [v. 12], and Persis [v. 12]) are commended for their labor “in the Lord.” Junia is a “commissioned missionary” (apostolos; see comments on v. 7), and Phoebe is a benefactor and deacon of the church. What conclusions can we draw from these numbers? We can only answer that question after setting these references into the larger context of the New Testament teaching about “women in the church.”

In what is a minefield of controversy, everybody at least agrees on three things: (1) women made up a significant part of the early Christian church (note the list above); (2) women were given the same access to God that men enjoyed (e.g., Gal. 3:28; 1 Peter 3:7); and (3) women engaged in significant ministry (see again the list above). What continues to divide believers is the extent to which the new covenant erased gender role distinctions in the home and in the church.

Our text does not touch the issue of the home, so we will leave it aside here. But we can hardly come to final conclusions about the implications of Romans 16 for the role of women in the church without some sense of the teaching of the New Testament as a whole. We may never isolate one text apart from the larger canon in deciding its meaning. Especially is this important in a text like Romans 16, which does not directly teach about the role of women but makes indirect references to it. To be sure, such indirect evidence is important, giving us a window into the way the church actually operated. The importance of such evidence should not be unduly minimized. But it must finally be integrated with clear teaching passages.

Scholars are so divided over what the New Testament as a whole teaches on this matter that we simply have no consensus or agreed-on foundation on which to build our interpretation of Romans 16. All I can do here is briefly delineate my own understanding of New Testament teaching.17 I do not think that the New Testament removes all restrictions on the ministry of women. Paul’s claim that the husband is “head” (kephale) over his wife involves a claim that the husband has the role of loving, sacrificial leader—a role parallel to Christ’s with respect to the church (Eph. 5:22–24). The wife responds to this relationship by joyful submission to the leadership of her husband (Eph. 5:22; Col. 3:18; 1 Peter 3:1–6).

Since the church imitates the family in the spiritual sphere, Paul extends this relationship of man and woman in marriage to the church. Women, he claims are not to “teach or to have authority” over men (1 Tim. 2:12). Paul effectively, then, prohibits women from ministries such as preaching or serving as “ruling elders.” Accepting the Bible as a single book with one ultimate author means that I must bring these results into my study of Romans 16. But open and accurate understanding of the Bible also means that I must allow Romans 16 to modify my view of the biblical evidence. But we are moving into the area of contemporary significance (see below).

Contemporary Significance

THE SOCIAL DIMENSION of the church. The social composition of the ancient Roman church is of interest to the historian and exegete, but I am not sure that it has much significance for the contemporary church. To argue, for instance, that our own churches should have the same social composition as the Roman church would be to indulge in the worst form of analogical application. It is simply not always the case that “as it was then, so it must be now.”

Nevertheless, it may, perhaps, be useful to remind ourselves that God has a special concern for the poor, for the downtrodden, for the helpless. This point emerges again and again in Luke’s Gospel and is reaffirmed in the New Testament letters (see esp. James 2:5–6; 5:1–11). Many of the Roman Christians, as we have noted, were slaves or former slaves. It is often those who feel the most alienated in our world that are open to find status in the world to come.

Sociologists often explain virtually all religious affiliation along such lines. But we need not succumb to a reductionistic sociological explanation of religious affection to recognize the germ of truth in what they are teaching. The church, we may therefore infer, must be a place that intentionally sets out to offer solace to those in our world who most need it. Ministry to the poor, the down and out, and the homeless should be high on the agenda of the church’s priorities.

The organization of the church. We must also be cautious in drawing conclusions from Romans 16 in this area. Once again, the fact that the Roman community was divided into house churches does not mean that the contemporary church should adopt a similar structure. Paul does not teach that the community should be divided into house churches. Indeed, house churches were probably a physical necessity in a time before church buildings existed and when other public buildings of any size would not have been available for Christians.

But there is one point we can draw from this circumstance, even if it is a bit tangential. If the Roman church met in a number of separate locations and rarely, perhaps never, met together in one place, and if Paul’s plea for mutual acceptance in Romans 14:1–15:13 was directed to these churches, there may here be indirect encouragement for local churches to do a better job of getting along with one another. Local churches, even when they believe almost all the same things, tend all too easily to be in competition with each other—a competition that often leads to mutual distrust and even criticism. Churches try to justify their own existence and raise their own status by blackballing others. Paul would urge us to recognize each other even if we disagree about the nonessentials of the faith.

Women in the church. We can turn, now, to the third matter of potential significance for the contemporary church: the significance of women in Romans 16. Before we enter into the controversial part of our conclusions, we should emphasize two points that the text makes clear. (1) Women were an important and public part of the Roman Christian community. The term public in this assertion is especially important. In many religions in the ancient world, women were allowed to participate only by proxy—through their husbands—or were relegated to the outer fringes of worship. Romans 16 suggests, and the rest of the New Testament confirms, that the early church was different. Paul recognizes women along with men, implying their equality in the community and their participation together in worship.

(2) Women engaged in significant ministry. I cringe when I hear the modern debate put in terms of women and ministry—as if there is doubt about whether women can be ministers. Our unfortunate restriction of that term to a particular ministry (e.g., head pastor) blinds us to the New Testament insistence that every believer is a minister, that is, a servant of Christ and the church, with important contributions to make to the life of the body. Those of us who conclude that the New Testament imposes restrictions on certain ministries of women should take the lead in honoring women in ministry and in seeking to involve them in all the ministries that they are free to engage in. Much chauvinism still lurks in the corners of our churches. Women are too often relegated to menial duties in the church when the body is aching because of the absence of gifted, trained women to teach other women, to counsel, to evangelize, to organize, and so on.

What, finally, of the contribution of Romans 16 to the continuing debate about restrictions on women in ministry? This text has become an important skirmish in the larger battle. On the one side are those who insist that the New Testament imposes no restrictions whatever on ministry for women. They frequently appeal to three points in Romans 16 to support their view. (1) The word “coworker(s)” (synergos) that Paul applies to women in verses 3 and 9 implies that these women had ministries equal in significance and nature to Paul’s; they were “leaders” in the church.18 (2) Phoebe was a prostatis, a “lead preacher” or “ruler” of the church in Cenchrea (vv. 1–2). (3) Junia was an apostle of the same nature and rank as Paul and the Twelve (v. 7).

As I have asserted above, I tend to think that the New Testament as a whole upholds restrictions on the ministry of women, barring them from teaching men or having authority over them (see 1 Tim. 2:12). The first two of the points just mentioned pose no problem for that view, but the third is more troublesome.

(1) When Paul calls women his “coworkers,” he is recognizing that they are carrying on ministries that are as significant as his own. But this word says nothing about the kind of ministry they are engaged in.

(2) Phoebe had an important ministry. But, as we argued in the Original Meaning section, Paul does not call her a pastor or leader but a deacon and benefactor. Both ministries (the former more “official” than the latter) were vital to the health of the church, but neither involved teaching or having authority over a man.

(3) But Junia is not so easy to explain away. Many scholars who take the position I hold on women in ministry insist that the name is Junias and that Paul is referring to a man. The lexical evidence, however, is decisively against this view. Indeed, the history of interpretation suggests that many interpreters have read their theology into this word. They assume that a woman cannot be an apostle, and so this individual cannot be a woman. Therefore, Romans 16:7 does, indeed, prove that women were “apostles” in the early church.

Must this verse force me to reconsider the position I hold? I should, of course, always go back to check the validity of my view against new findings. But in this case the situation is complicated by the different meanings that Paul gives to the term apostle (Gk. apostolos). As we argued above, it is at least as possible that Paul is using the word of these otherwise unknown early Christians in the sense of “commissioned missionary” rather than in the sense of “authoritative representative of Christ.”

My own conclusion, then, is that Romans 16 does not overturn the view I think the New Testament elsewhere teaches about women in ministry. But I want to underscore the fact that I both understand the exegetical arguments for different conclusions and have tremendous respect for many of those who make those arguments. My good friend and former colleague, Walt Liefeld, and I have discussed this issue at length privately and in public forums. We come to different conclusions on the matter (see his NIV Application Commentary on 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus). But this in no way diminishes our regard for one another or the Christian fellowship we enjoy together.

Sadly, such relationships are not always maintained by people who take different sides on this issue. Moreover, I can sympathize with women especially who take a view such as mine as a personal threat to what they are doing. All I can do is plead that my own reading of the New Testament (always provisional) leads me to take the view that I do.