Romans 16

CHAPTER XVI

Conclusion

2. Greetings, chapter 16

Romans 16:1

1 Now I commend to you Phoebe, our sister, being a deaconess of the church in Cenchreae, that you receive her in the Lord, in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you assist her in whatever business she may have need of you, for also she herself has become an assistant of many, even of myself.

The fact that this commendation is placed first, that it assumes simultaneous arrival of Phœbe and Paul’s letter in Rome, and that no other person besides her is mentioned in this commendation, forms the basis for the conclusion that she was the bearer of Paul’s letter to Rome. The fact that she was entrusted with the letter is not stated because her handing it over to the elders of the church in Rome would show that she had been made its bearer. Her name means bright or radiant. “Our sister” joins her to the Romans and to Paul as a sister in the faith; see “brethren,” in 7:1, 4. But she is more.

“Being a deaconess of the church in Cenchreæ” names her official position. Cenchreæ was the eastern harbor of Corinth, the port for vessels from Ephesus and from the coast cities of the Aegean Sea. We learn incidentally that a Christian “church” had been established also in this town. We catch a glimpse of the extent of Paul’s work which reached out from the center, Corinth, throughout the province. Paul sailed from Cenchreæ after his first long stay in Corinth (Acts 18:18). Only here in Romans is ἐκκλησία used in the sense of a local congregation.

Διάκονον is the feminine accusative, διακόνισσα is a later word. Both the participle and the genitive indicate that Phœbe occupied an official position by appointment of the church which was similar to that of the seven deacons who were appointed in the church at Jerusalem (Acts 6:1–6). She belongs to the class indicated by διακονία in 12:7. Her work of ministering was not mere private effort but was carried on by authorization of the congregation. It is only fair to assume that she was not the only one so appointed in Cenchreæ; such an appointment was in all likelihood held by several women.

This is the first mention of women deacons in the church. The way in which Paul introduces this deaconess to the Romans indicates that the fact that women served in this office was not a novelty but something that was already known. While we lack information we must, nevertheless, say that, since the arrangement of having male deacons in Jerusalem had proved highly beneficial at the very start, the appointment of women was the next logical step. The ministration of the first deacons consisted in the distribution of food to widows. But, surely, it must soon have become apparent that, for instance, in cases of sickness and of poverty and of loneliness, especially of poor widows and orphans, a need had arisen for the alleviation of which men could not be used; only competent women could serve in this capacity. Voluntary efforts would accomplish much, and in many churches they, no doubt, sufficed as they still do; but at least here in Cenchreæ we see the forward step, the addition of duly appointed deaconesses.

How the duties of the office were arranged and how it functioned we do not know beyond the one statement that it rendered ministering help for the sake of help. That is the heart of deaconess work today, its present form being a recent arrangement. From 1 Tim. 3:11, which was written a few years later, we see that there were many deaconesses in the Ephesian church; they are simply called “women,” but the qualifications laid down match those required for male deacons. The “widows” mentioned in 1 Tim. 5:9, 10 are not deaconesses but women who received regular support and were entered on a list for that purpose; a certain return service in the way of oversight of younger women was expected of them.

Romans 16:2

2 Paul asks that Phœbe be received “in the Lord” (see “in Christ Jesus,” 6:11) and defines this as “in a manner worthy of saints” (see 1:7), of which people who are true Christians need not be ashamed. Let them connect their action with the Lord as true saints and believers should do. This is the general feature. In particular, the Romans are to assist Phœbe in whatever business (πρᾶγμα) she may have need of their assistance. So much is clear, Phœbe went to Rome on some business matter and was thus made Paul’s letter bearer. Paul used her necessary journey for sending this communication to Rome.

We can only guess as to what Phœbe’s business was. Some connect it with her office and work as a deaconess and think that she went to Rome to look after endangered souls who had gone there from Cenchreæ; others think of legal affairs with the Roman government and thus make her a woman of means and of prominence. It is best to put a check upon the imagination. We note the matching of προστάτις and παραστῆτε, “assistant of many”—“assist her”; but this adds nothing definite regarding the business for which she went to Rome. This feminine noun appears only here, the masculine means “a patron,” and is evidently used in a general sense: “she has become (Greek: became in the past) a benefactress of many.”

She was apparently a widow or an unmarried woman but of mature years and thoroughly competent. She could not have traveled alone in those days; and this means that she most likely traveled with her servants. If other Christians had accompanied her, Paul would have mentioned at least that fact and would have commended also them to the Romans. The only conclusion we can draw is that Phœbe was a woman of means. If she were transferring her home to Rome, Paul would have written, “Receive her unto yourselves,” i.e., as a member of your congregation. “An assistant of many” refers to her past services and benefactions which she had rendered while she was a deaconess in Cenchreæ. Among the “many” Paul enrolls himself: “even of myself.” This is another unwritten incident.

Paul did not only know this woman as a fine deaconess in Cenchreæ but he himself had benefited by her ministrations. Was it because he had been sick at Cenchreæ, and that the host with whom he was lodged had summoned her?

Romans 16:3

3 Paul sends salutations to the entire congregation at Rome. The following list includes no less. He indicates the individuals with whom he has had personal contact, but in addition to these he names others with whom he has plainly had no such contact. Besides these latter whom he mentions by name he indicates groups of considerable size that include the rank and file of the membership. The first is the entire group that met regularly in the home of Prisca and Aquilla (v. 5). Two additional groups appear in v. 10, 11. A fourth is saluted in v. 14; finally a fifth in v. 15. All the Christians in Rome are greeted; besides these five groups no others existed in Rome for whom Paul had no word of greeting. A man like Paul could not have ignored them.

It is unwarranted, then, to advance the claim that Paul could not have known so many individuals at Rome personally. Count the number whom he marks as being personally known to him. Of the twenty-two who are named by him just eleven are marked as having been in previous contact with him. This shows what one ought to think of the remark about a regular Voelkerwanderung to Rome which this list of greetings would indicate. Of all the persons previously contacted by Paul in his work from Jerusalem to Illyricum (15:19) eleven persons had migrated to Rome and had settled there. The other eleven whom he names are not known to him in person; he knows of them, knows their character and their importance, and therefore greets them by name. This shows how well Paul was informed, and we know that his sources of information were always adequate and ample.

A study of these greetings reveals the make-up and the approximate number of Christians in Rome at this time. Many were slaves, but in those days “slaves” were often educated, capable, and important people. This must be true of the two households mentioned in v. 10, 11. Some seem to have been freedmen. The names of no great personages appear. Several women are named. The Roman congregation was not comparable to the great church at Jerusalem. Its membership did not run into thousands. But this small congregation received Romans, the greatest of the apostolic epistles!

Salute Prisca and Aquila, my fellow workers in Christ Jesus, who for my life (once, aorist) laid down their own necks, to whom not I alone give thanks but also all the churches of the Gentiles; and the church in their house.

This couple fittingly heads the list; for of no one else could Paul say what he here says of these two. With the exception of Rufus they are the only ones in the whole list of whom we know definitely more than is here said. Here alone in his letter Paul asks the whole congregation whom he is addressing to salute individual members in its midst. The aorist imperative is to indicate the single act. Converted by Paul in Corinth where he found work in Aquila’s establishment, the couple moved to Ephesus and remained there until recently, then moved to Rome where Paul now greets them, and finally, during Paul’s second imprisonment, we find them in Ephesus a second time (2 Tim. 4:19).

Here, in 2 Tim. 4:19, and in Acts 18:18, 26 (correct the A. V.) the wife is named first. The only exception to this order is found 1 Cor. 16:19, since in Acts 18:2 the husband would naturally be mentioned first. This precedence of Prisca cannot be accidental. It is taken to mean that she possessed decidedly greater ability than her husband and, all in proper sphere and manner, made it count for the work of the gospel; an example appears in Acts 18:24, etc. Her Roman name has caused her to be connected with the Acilian gens, which possibly makes her a noble Roman lady.

This view rests on the strength of inscriptions discussed by Sanday and Headlam, 420. Her superiority is evident, and Paul honors it by so often naming her first. In the records Aquila makes the impression of being a retiring and quiet personality. The diminutive and more familiar Priscilla is at times used instead of Prisca.

Paul honors both by calling them “my fellow workers in Christ Jesus” (on the phrase see 6:11), which refers to gospel work. It has been supposed that 16:1–23 (or 16:3–23) was not addressed to the Romans but was directed to the Ephesians. How unwarranted such a hypothesis is appears here. How could Paul write thus about these two to the very place where all knew that they had worked with him and had seen this work for two years and more?

Romans 16:4

4 To have been fellow workers of the great apostle and to be acknowledged as such by him means much; but Paul adds even more. On one occasion (aorist), of which to our sorrow we know no more than is here said, this couple “laid down their own necks for Paul’s life” (5:7). This must be understood to mean that they risked death in order to shield Paul from death. To lay down the neck means that the executioner’s ax is to fall in the next moment, and is thus a strong figure for imminent and violent death. Οἵτινες = such people they were. Paul gladly acknowledges the fact that he owes them thanks, and that this is true regarding all the churches of the Gentiles in view of Paul’s work among Gentiles.

Romans 16:5

5 Here the first larger group of Roman Christians is added: “the church in their house.” Κατʼ οἷκοναὐτῶν says more than the mere genitive “of their house”; it means rather, “pertaining to their house.” The same is said regarding their house during their residence in Ephesus, 1 Cor. 16:19. A part of the congregation made the house of Aquila and Prisca their regular place of meeting. This couple evidently possessed means, and Aquila’s business must have been extensive. It is suggested that, when, with all the Jews, he was expelled from Rome by Claudius, he did not sell his house and that he had now returned to occupy it once more.

It seems to have been an early custom in the church to have parts of a congregation assemble regularly in the house of some family that was able to accommodate a goodly number, the family freely granting this privilege at this time when other suitable places were not readily found. Many could gather in the open court of a more commodious house. It is not safe, however, to conclude that, because we read of no church buildings, no large building was available and rented for the meetings of the entire congregation.

Salute Epænetus, my beloved, who is the first fruits of Asia for Christ. This refers to the province called “Asia” and names Epænetus as being the first convert of the entire province. Now Paul, together with Prisca and Aquila, came to Ephesus where Paul spoke in the synagogue and then went on to Jerusalem in order later to return for his work in Ephesus. It is likely that Epænetus was converted by Prisca and Aquila, and that for this reason his name is here mentioned after their names. Acts 18:18, etc. It is even surmised that he was a tentmaker, worked in Aquila’s establishment, and thus came to Rome with this couple. Paul would thus know him intimately, and “my beloved” would fit exactly.

Romans 16:6

6 Salute Maria who labored much for us. “Maria” would be Roman, the variant “Mariam” Jewish. Paul does not indicate her former Judaism. She must have done much that was actually hard (κοπιάω, to grow tired, to toil with effort) in order to have her name placed in the forefront. Between the strongly attested reading “for you” (the Romans) and the far less well-attested “for us,” the latter must be correct. The basis of Paul’s greetings is personal acquaintance and then also personal knowledge of worth. But “us” is not the majestic or editorial plural; it = Paul plus the Romans.

Somewhere in the Orient Paul learned to know this woman (whether she was Jewish or Gentile) and her unstinted devotion to and labor for the church, which she continued on her removal to Rome. She has her proper place here in the list.

Romans 16:7

7 Salute Andronicus and Juntas, my kinsmen and my fellow war captives who were of note among the apostles, who also before me were in Christ. This is Junias, a man, not Junia (Julia), a woman, wife or sister of Andronicus (R. 172 states what the Greek accent should be). Chrysostom may exclaim in admiration because of a woman apostle: such an apostle would be strange indeed. So also there is no difficulty regarding “my kinsmen,” which Paul applies to Jews in general in 9:3, and certainly uses in this sense here in v. 10 and 21. Or did Paul have six relatives of the family in Rome; and did he scatter them throughout his list of greetings instead of greeting them together in a group? The observation is correct that Paul purposely mentions Jewish descent in order to mark the connection of the Roman church, with the Jewish source of its faith.

The word is “prisoners of war.” Now Paul was often jailed (2 Cor. 11:23) before his long imprisonments in Caesarea and in Rome; but in connection with these he calls himself ὁδέσμιος, speaks of δεσμά, φυλακή, not of being an αἰχμάλωτος. He speaks of Aristarchus and of Epaphras as his “fellow captives” (Col. 4:10; Philemon 23), not as having been jailed or arrested with him (as Silas was at Philippi)—the word would not be appropriate for that—but as sharing the special hardships incident to Paul’s warfare in behalf of the gospel. Aristarchus accompanied Paul when he was transferred from Caesarea to Rome. But he was not under arrest but shared Paul’s lot. So the word is to be understood here. These two men of Paul’s own nationality at one time suffered with Paul as true soldiers of the Lord in his great campaign. Of course, when, where, how we do not know.

In fact, they stand out as men of note not only in Paul’s estimation but in the estimation of all the apostles; οἵτινες, such as they are (the indefinite relative as in v. 4). It is rather extravagant to regard “illustrious ἐντοῖςἀποστόλοις” as meaning, “as apostles among the apostles,” and then to think of a host of apostles and regard as such all who carried the gospel anywhere.

In the first place, Paul never uses “apostle” in the wider sense; in the second place, when it is so used (Barnabas, Acts 14:4, 14), the word still keeps its meaning: “one commissioned and sent,” even as Barnabas was commissioned together with Paul (Acts 13:2–4), and is never used concerning men (or women) who go out of their own accord like those who were driven out by the great persecution after Stephen’s martyrdom. Thirdly, ἐν states where these two were considered illustrious: “in the circle of” the Twelve at Jerusalem (“by” is incorrect). For this reason Paul adds that they were converted to Christ before he himself was converted. The perfect γέγοναν (R. 336; the common form is γεγόνασιν) means that they are still “in Christ” (see 6:11); but this is not our perfect (R. V.) but our past “were” (A. V.). This relative clause explains why these two men could be so highly esteemed in the circle of the apostles.

8, 9) Salute Ampliatus, my beloved in the Lord (6:11). Salute Urbanus, our fellow worker in Christ, and Stachys, my beloved one.

“My beloved one” = that Paul knew him personally and had thus learned to love him. We also see that he is greeting all his personally known dear friends who are now located in Rome and not merely those among them who had done something notable. Only the first one he calls a fellow worker. “Our” fellow worker, however, does not mean “our” in the sense of Paul and his apostolic assistants. In v. 1 it is “my” because Prisca and Aquila had just recently come to Rome; but in the case of Urbanus it is “our” because, after working with Paul, he had now for some time worked similarly in Rome. “Our” = Paul’s and the Romans’ fellow worker.

Romans 16:10

10 Salute Apelles, the approved in Christ.

Δόκιμος means that by means of some ordeal Apelles was put to a severe test of his faith and came through it “attested,” “approved.” Since all of those already mentioned are persons who were personally known to Paul from previous association with him, and since the test to which reference is made seems to be one of which Paul had direct knowledge, Apelles may be one whom Paul also knew personally. That would make twelve instead of eleven although we cannot be sure.

Salute those from them belonging to Aristobulus. Salute Herodion, my kinsman. Salute those from them belonging to Narcissus, those who are in Christ.

All of these are unquestionably slaves; ἐκτῶν = “from the household.” Paul has named all those personally known to him save two to be mentioned in v. 13; he now greets others and begins with two groups: all the Christian slaves of Aristobulus and of Narcissus. To the first group belongs one Jewish Christian, Herodion, “my kinsman” in the sense of the word as it is used in v. 7. Nothing is mentioned about him but his nationality. By singling him out as a Jew, Paul must then mean that the others of these slaves who were Christians were Gentiles. Herodion’s name would not appear between these two groups of slaves unless he himself were also a slave and belonged to one of these groups, namely to the first. The very name by which he was known assures that.

The fact that neither Aristobulus nor Narcissus are greeted is plain. The last Aristobulus was a grandson of Herod the Great and lived and died in Rome as a private citizen, a friend and an adherent of Claudius. Josephus, Wars, 2, 11, 6; Ant. 18, 5, 4. This seems to be the Aristobulus here referred to. His household would naturally be designated οἱἈριστοβούλου. The probability is that he was already dead at this time, but if this were the case, his whole household would be united with the imperial household and would continue to bear its original name as other cases show.

Romans 16:11

11 This would explain the name Herodion as a name for the only Jew, Paul naming him “my kinsman” for this reason. Some think that there were other Jews in the household of Aristobulus, but this is questionable. From the way in which Paul specifies the Christians as being a part of the household of Narcissus it would even seem that the entire household of Aristobulus was composed of Christians, for such a participial limitation (τοὺςὄντας) is not added in v. 10. Herodion seems to have gotten his name from the fact that he belonged to the Herodian Aristobulus, he being his master’s only Jewish slave.

We have a similar case regarding “those from Narcissus.” This Narcissus may well have been the infamous and all-powerful freedman of Claudius, who was put to death by Empress Agrippina shortly after the accession of Nero, and his host of slaves were likewise incorporated into the household of the emperor while continuing to bear the designation “those of Narcissus.” The name is common, especially among slaves and among freedmen, for these retained their former master’s name. The analogy of imperial judicial murders speaks for the emperor’s possession of the Narcissan household. The great number of the slaves to be found in such a household necescitates the distinguishing addition: “those who are in Christ.”

These two groups of Christians must have included many persons, not a few of whom occupied important positions. One can only wonder, apart from an identification of Aristobulus and Narcissus, how two such households came to be invaded by the Christian faith. It will remain an untold tale. If, as we assume, these Christians belonged to the imperial domain, this opens up another intensely interesting situation. The author’s exposition of Acts 28:17–31 reveals that no missionary work had been done among the Jews in Rome before Paul arrived there as a prisoner, and that the Lord had pointed Paul to this waiting work (Acts 23:11). It appears as though the explanation lies right here, namely in the composition of the Roman membership.

Romans 16:12

12 Salute Tryphæna and Tryphosa, who labored in the Lord.

“It was usual to designate members of the same family by derivatives of the same root.” Lightfoot. Here the root is τρυφάω, “to live daintily.” But the English imitation “Dainty” and “Disdain” goes astray regarding the second; “Dainty” and “Delicate” is a little better. The names are the only basis for supposing that these two were sisters; an additional basis may be found in the fact that they are placed together. Like Maria, they, too, are prominent in Paul’s situation because they are two who have done hard work in the Lord (see 6:11). This was work done in the past (aorist participle); that means that Paul has heard of it, and that the labor so done stands to their credit. Note the recurrence of the ἐν phrases which always connect with the Lord.

Salute Persia, the beloved, who labored much in the Lord.

Four women, and hard, tiring labor is predicated of all of them. All of them seem to have had no difficulty in finding plenty of hard work to do, work concerning which Paul can testify publicly that it was, indeed, done “in the Lord.” It was not a lot of effort in so-called “church work” which the Lord cannot accept.

“The beloved,” without “my,” implies that Persis had not come from one of Paul’s churches and was not personally known to him. Like Maria (v. 6), she has “much” to her credit, which accounts for “the beloved.” Such an epithet is not added in the case of Maria since much of her labor had been done under Paul’s eyes. With reference to both he uses ἥτις, “one such as,” i.e., as belonged to a class of such women. The church always had a large class of these.

Romans 16:13

13 Salute Rufus, the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine.

Although Rufus is a common name, we are safe in regarding this Rufus as one of the two sons of Simon, the Cyrenian, who bore the cross for Jesus, Mark 15:21. Mark wrote his Gospel a few years after Paul wrote Romans, and Mark alone tells the story of Simon and, when he does so, inserts the notice that he was the father of Alexander and Rufus. It is very likely that Mark wrote his Gospel in Rome and wrote it for the Romans. He named Simon’s sons because the Romans knew them and had at least Rufus as one of their members. Here we find Paul greeting this Rufus and his mother. The father, we take it, had died. Alexander may also have been dead or lived elsewhere. Zahn calls it “a senile skepticism” to deny this identity of Rufus.

The fact that τὸνἐκλεκτόν has nothing to do with “election” unto eternal life needs scarcely to be stated, for all the saints here named and indicated would be elect in that sense. Paul calls him a choice Christian, ausgezeichnet, much as he calls Andronicus and Junias “of note” or “distinguished.” It is not well to introduce election by saying that “the wonderful guidance by which Simon and his family was led to Christ appears as real proof of his election,” especially when this “election” is misunderstood.

The mother of Rufus must have been well along in years and was living as a widow with her younger son. It is a most tender touch when Paul calls her also his mother. Only two words, “and mine,” recall the fact that he had once been in her home, whether in Jerusalem or in some other city, and that he had there been under her motherly care. What must she have felt when this letter was read in the assembled congregation and the reader came to these words: “Rufus, and his mother and mine”?

Romans 16:14

14 Salute Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hernias, and the brethren that are with them.

Just to name these is to honor them. Why these five are grouped together does not appear save that they formed the center of a circle like that pertaining to the house of Aquila and Prisca.

Romans 16:15

15 Salute Philologus and Julia, Nereus and his sister and Olympas, and all the saints with them.

Another group of five, the sister being unnamed like the mother of Rufus. The group gathered about these five seems to have been the largest of all, for Paul adds “all” to “saints” (see 1:7).

Romans 16:16

16 Salute one another with a holy kiss.

We must note throughout that Paul does not say, “I or we salute you!” but, “Do you salute such and such persons!” Accordingly, he now asks that the salutation be made “with a holy kiss.” The salutation from Paul is to bind all the Romans together by being executed by the Romans themselves as proxy for Paul. In Paul’s list all the members of the Roman church are included; one can scarcely assume that, when Paul’s letter was read, some of the members were not to receive the kiss of salutation. So also in regard to this last “salute” the implication is that the whole membership of Rome would gather in one place, hear the letter, and offer this salutation for Paul with a holy kiss.

This was an established ceremony; it is mentioned in 1 Cor. 16:20; 2 Cor. 13:12; 1 Thess. 5:26; 1 Pet. 5:14. Each person turned to his neighbor in the assembly, and both bestowed and received a kiss, and this bestowal and receiving expressed the fact that all were in true spiritual accord. This meaning of the kiss shows how natural is the admonition that follows in v. 17–20. This kiss of fellowship was in the nature of a public ceremony and bore a public significance. The word “holy” guards against misconceptions. Bestowing a kiss upon brow or cheek as a sign of friendly accord, affection, and honor dates very far back among Oriental people. This meaning of the public kiss makes the act of Judas who betrayed Christ with such a kiss so unutterably base.

In certain European countries men still offer and receive the public kiss of honor. In the church the fraternal public kiss continued in use for centuries. It also came to signify reconciliation when penitents were received back into fellowship; it likewise expressed mutual forgiveness when it was bestowed between members of a family just before going to the Lord’s Supper. It is still used in the East where the men and the women sit separately and thus use this salutation. In the Roman ritual the pax, a small piece of metal or wood which the priest kissed and then sent around to be kissed by the congregation, was substituted for the ancient custom.

There salute you all the churches of Christ.

Representatives of these churches were with Paul when he wrote, Acts 20:4. Paul could speak for all these churches apart even from these representatives, for he is their greatest representative. This, however, is the minor point. The main point is the unity of all the churches, which includes that of Rome. It is this that Paul brings out and impresses on the Romans with his comprehensive salutation. We see what is in his mind regarding this unity when he adds his great admonition in the next verses.

17. Now I admonish you, brethren, to look out for those causing the divisions and the deathtraps contrary to the doctrine which you on your part did learn and definitely incline away from them! For such are not serving as slaves our Lord Jesus Christ but their own belly, and by means of flattering and pious words they thoroughly deceive the hearts of the innocent.

We have already shown how naturally this admonition flows from the preceding salutations. Those who see in the latter little more than a sending of regards to a group of people feel that this admonition comes with abruptness. Even stronger language is used: a sudden break in the line of greetings; “a sudden flaming impulse breaking through the reticence hitherto maintained” (L.). Paul suddenly took the pen from the hand of Tertius, to whom he was dictating, dashed down these admonitions, then handed the pen back and again dictated with calmness. Paul becomes a rather erratic, impulsive person. Then we note the idea that Paul just could not close, that he is so earnest that he breaks out anew, “makes his letter somewhat formless” yet thus shows its genuineness.

These four verses belong to the entire epistle. The whole of it has presented anew “the doctrine which you (Romans) on your part did learn,” and some of these Romans had been highly esteemed by the Twelve even before Paul was converted (v. 7). This was the doctrine in which the Romans had stood unitedly since their church in Rome had first been formed. In order to found churches in this faith and doctrine Paul had spent his energy; it was the doctrine of “all the churches of Christ” (v. 16). To it Paul was devoting the rest of his life, his next objective being Spain by way of Rome (15:28). All of the calls: “Salute, salute!” sixteen in an uninterrupted series with the grand closing salutation from all the churches to the one in Rome, emphasize the great oneness of all the churches with Rome in this blessed, saving doctrine.

This is the very reason that the salutations are worded as they are. They all point toward this closing admonition; they are designed to do that. This admonition is not an afterthought nor a thought that came only when the other churches were mentioned (v. 16). This admonition is an integral part of the whole letter and is purposely placed where it stands because this is the proper place: 1) the unified doctrine in extenso; 2) the uniting salutations (v. 3–16); 3) the admonition to let no contrary doctrine and no teachers lead anyone astray from this unity.

Παρακαλῶ with “brethren,” see 12:1. Σκοπεῖν = “look out for,” “be keeping your eyes open for.” The rendering, “mark them who” (A. V.) in our versions implies that such errorists were present in Rome; they were not, but some of them might drift into Rome at any time, and “look out for them” sounds the warning to be on guard. These men are characterized most exactly. The substantivized present participle τοὺςποιοῦντας = “engaged in the business of producing,” and what they make it their business to produce is “standing apart,” divisions, the opposite of unity or “thinking the same thing in accord with Christ,” and “with one accord with one mouth glorifying God” (15:5, 6).

Worse than that, they also cause σκάνδαλα, “deathtraps”; see the word in 9:33 and 11:9, and note that it always designates what is fatal. “Offenses” (A. V.) can be understood only in the sense of mortal offenses; and “occasions of stumbling” (A. V.) must be discarded. These errorists tear believers out of the unity of the church, and their teachings often act like deathtraps in which souls are fatally caught. R. 758 draws attention to the series of articles and the meaning of each. Τούς makes a substantive of only the participle; but the others specify the divisions, the deathtraps, and the doctrine as those here concerned and well known.

The relative clause is vital: “contrary to (παρά, the Greek idiom, R. 616) the doctrine which you on your part (emphatic pronoun)—you as true believers—did receive,” the one true doctrine of Christ and of all the apostles. The Greek is content with the historical aorist whereas we say “have received.” The doctrine is one, the divisions and the deathtraps of error are always many, plural. This fact is worth noting. The latter also keep varying in their attacks against the one doctrine. The word “doctrine” is in disrepute in some circles. But “doctrine” is the adequate statement of the divine realities and facts concerned with our salvation.

It is telling and thus teaching just what these realities (ἀλήθεια) are. What earnest man would spurn and ignore this διδαχή? False doctrine is telling falsehoods about these realities, telling that they are not true, and that the opposite is true. The first falsehood, uttered by the liar from the beginning in Gen. 3:5, is the classic example; Paul names him in v. 20.

Mark the aorist imperative ἐκκλίνατε and note the force of ἐκ plus ἀπό: “definitely, decisively, once for all, incline away from them”—“from them,” not merely from their teaching, “from them” because of their teaching. “Avoid them” (A. V.) is the sense: have nothing to do with them. “Turn away from them” (R. V.) with finality. This is the apostolic admonition which is stated by a peremptory aorist imperative. The present-day unionistic advice is: “Fraternize with them, fellowship them!”

Note well that the apostolic doctrine never causes either inward or outward rents in the church, either division of mind or schism in communion and fellowship. How can it when it is ever one and the same? Being one, it unifies, holds in unity. When those who hold this doctrine firmly reject those who refuse to hold it or some part of it, they cause no division but prevent division by not giving room to those who do divide and disunite. They keep the unity in the Word intact against those who would invade and disrupt that unity.

On the other hand, because of its very nature every false doctrine divides. It separates him who holds it and separates all others whom he succeeds in getting to hold it. The first false doctrine separated the whole human race from God (5:12); it cost the blood of God’s Son to reinstitute the union, and it was reinstated only in part. That first false doctrine was surely a σκάνδαλον or deathtrap. It fatally caught the bulk of our race. “Yea, hath God said?” (Gen. 3:1) still operates, and who knows for how many it still proves to be a deathtrap?

Paul’s admonition is weakened in its application to us today by use of the historical principle of interpretation. Who were “those causing the divisions,” etc.? In the first place, the well-known Judaizers who mixed law with gospel; then, as First Corinthians shows, a number of others, some by means of philosophical, some through false moral teaching. And it is stated that Paul’s words can be applied only to these errors, and that we cannot today apply Paul’s admonition unless we are able to point to exact duplicates of these errors. The case is generally narrowed down to the Judaizers of Paul’s day who demanded circumcision and observance of Jewish ceremonialism. And these are regarded as men who rejected the entire gospel.

But look at those Judaizers mentioned in Acts 15:5: “certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed,” former Pharisees, now believers, yet errorists. In Jerusalem they dropped their error, in Galatia some appeared as separatists to divide the churches and to draw them into their separatism.

Paul’s injunction is not to keep away only from total rejecters of the gospel—what Christians ever needed such a warning? His injunction is to keep away from believers who are errorists and teach falsely. Not only the exact duplicates of the errorists of Paul’s day are to be shunned, as though no new ones could arise, as though new ones do not divide, tear, and set traps, as though all errorists new and old, great and small, are not related, all in the same class; but, according to Paul himself (15:4), “whatever things were written before, for our instruction were they written,” his admonition is to be fully applied and not weakened or evaded.

Romans 16:18

18 The first word generalizes: οἱτοιοῦτοι, “such,” the ones Paul has met and any others who may appear. Paul characterizes all errorists according to their error, first as far as the Lord is concerned, then as far as the innocent Christians are concerned. “Not our Lord Jesus do they serve” does not mean—as though the verb were διακονέω—that they do not render him the benefit of their service, but that they are not acting the part of slaves who obey as slaves, obey without question every word of “our Lord Jesus Christ,” to whom as our Lord all of us (you Romans and I) are slaves. In the next verse Paul has the contrast: “Your obedience” has become publicly known, i.e., you are slaves who do obey our Lord, and it is so evident, has been proved to such an extent, that all men who at all know you know that. As we have seen, many of the Romans were slaves to earthly masters; this word about obeying the heavenly Lord went home to them much more effectively than it does to us who have only heard of slaves. They knew what masters did with recalcitrant slaves. These got the lash or worse. Such evil slaves are all “such” as teach contrary to their heavenly Master.

Note 1:1 and the fact that Paul’s very first word introduces him to the Roman Christians, so many of whom were slaves, as “a slave of Jesus Christ,” as one who absolutely, also in all his teaching and all his doctrine, obeyed “our Lord.” What about errorists, about slaves who emancipate themselves from “our Lord’s” words? Note again the force of “our Lord Jesus Christ.” All the Romans were faithful slaves of this their one heavenly Lord and intended ever to be and to act as such slaves. Could they ever tolerate in their midst men who do not prove themselves such slaves in their teaching? Could they ever even listen to such evil slaves who tried to make also them disobedient slaves such as they themselves were? This shows the effectiveness of what Paul as a slave of Jesus Christ says to his true fellow slaves.

It also casts light on the opposite dative: “but their own belly.” The moment we understand that δουλεύουσιν refers, not to ministration and benefit, but to unquestioning obedience, the figure involved stands out with clearness. The old idea will be discarded: “they think merely of a luxurious life.” This does not fit Phil. 3:19 nor this passage. It is not a fact that every errorist seeks an easy life, panders to his belly. In thousands of cases errorists choose a hard lot in life, work and suffer in order to propagate their errors, perhaps even die for them. The point to be stressed is obedience. In the case of every error a Christian ceases to render absolute slavelike obedience to the Lord and yields that obedience, not just to the errorists—Paul puts it drastically—but to their own belly, their own lower and lowest nature.

It seems that Paul chose the word “belly” because of the fact of Eve’s eating in obedience to Satan instead of refraining from eating in obedience to God. Paul defines what he means when he says in v. 19, τὸκακόν, “that which is base,” and when he goes still farther in v. 20 and speaks of “Satan.” Some think that error is intellectual, and if it is a fault, it is only an intellectual fault, one that is on a high plane. That view is corrected here. It is the rebellion of a slave against the most blessed Lord himself, the acceptance of a slavery of the most depraving kind. Our obedience belongs wholly to him who is above, our true Lord, and never in any bit of teaching to our lower nature, here called “belly.”

After describing what error makes of errorists in their relation to the Lord, Paul adds what it makes of them in relation to innocent Christians: “And by means of flattering and pious words they thoroughly deceive the hearts of the innocent.” The ἄκακοι are the Arglosen who expect nothing bad, the innocent who are free from evil thoughts. Heb. 7:26 uses this word in the latter sense with reference to Christ. Paul says nothing about those Christians who have learned not to be “guileless,” whose experience has taught them to look for error, to uncover its deceptions. The havoc of error is wrought among the innocent, trustful souls.

How destructive even a little error may become for them Paul has already indicated by the word σκάνδαλα, “deathtraps,” and we may compare Matt. 18:6 regarding the entrapment of one of these little ones who believe in me and the awful word Jesus adds to that. Since they are not prepared for anything evil, such defenseless Christians are readily “completely deceived” (ἐκ in the verb) by means of the type of speech which error of all kinds loves to use: χρηστολογία, speech that sounds good and serviceable, and εὐλογία, that sounds like blessing. Error sounds so beneficial and so pious: we shall benefit, we shall be better Christians, etc. It was the language Satan used in Gen. 3:5.

Who has not heard that giving up Inspiration will make us understand the Bible far better; how dreadful it is that babies should be called sinners; how God could certainly not have created hell, and the like? Even where error has destroyed all truth the name “Christian” is constantly sounded, and the language of Christianity and its forms of service are retained, and “the simple” (A. V.) are caught. What if they are sincere, these self-deceived, and take their own poison—will the unwary, to whom that poison is sold as the best medicine, escape its effects because of sincerity?

Romans 16:19

19 “For” explains in what sense the Romans are to understand Paul’s admonition, and the whole of v. 19 is included in the explanation. “You,” Paul says, “have been notably free from deceivers, yet you must be warned.” For your obedience has come to (the ears of) all; over you, therefore, I rejoice. Yet I want you to be wise toward the good while immune toward the evil.

The emphasis is on the three pronouns: ὑμῶν—ἐφʼ ὑμῖν—ὑμᾶς. Your obedience has come to all; over you I rejoice; yet I want you on your guard; in this sense I write to you about deceivers. Many have difficulty with γάρ and make incorrect connections.

Note: your “obedience,” namely full and complete obedience to the doctrine you have received (v. 17) and thus to “our Lord Jesus Christ,” the obedience of true slaves of Christ, the opposite of the errorists who do not obey because they are not his slaves. The news of the soundness of the faith of the Roman church has reached “all,” namely all Christians in the congregations of other lands. The state of the church in the world’s capital would naturally be reported far and wide.

“Over you,” Paul says, “I rejoice.” We now see why this epistle discusses no aberrations but is almost direct instruction. Although it was without the service of an apostle, this church had kept its full doctrinal and ethical integrity. It was sound in its obedience. In chapter 14 only the adiaphora needed clearing up. We so often find the reverse. The churches in our great capitals so often lack full obedience, so often stray far from it; in smaller places, however, and in rural sections, soundness is often found, which would rejoice Paul’s heart if he were here.

“Yet,” Paul says, “I want you posted and warned.” In his happy, contrasting way he states it: “to be (ever) wise toward the good but immune toward the evil.” Μέν—δέ balance. “The good” (or “the Good”) recalls 14:16, but the context points to “the doctrine which you on your part did learn,” and “wise toward that” has in mind the wisdom which ever recognizes it as the Lord’s own Word to be absolutely obeyed by faith and by life. Our versions rather misunderstand ὀκεραίους which means “unmixed.” Trench, Synonyms, clears up our versions regarding the three instances where this word is used, Matt. 10:16; here; Phil. 2:15, which insert “harmless” and also “sincere” in text or margin. The A. V. has “simple” in v. 17 as a translation of ἄκακος, and now “simple” also as a rendering of ἀκέραιος, which is rather confusing.

“The evil” is all that is παρά the true doctrine, “beside” it, contrary to it, entirely error. And to be unmixed toward that means to be sound to the core, to have “immunity from disturbing elements” (Trench); wise, ever receptive for the true doctrine; safe and sound over against all error. That is what Paul “wants,” and we know how he labored for this. Today many frankly do not want this. Error does not stink in their nostrils; to them it has a holy smell. Although they offend and insult the true church they embrace open errorists, they are not as Paul says “unmixed,” unadulterated with regard to the bad, but “mixed,” adultered, and often, sad to say, proud of the fact.

Romans 16:20

20 We are to be wise and immune, but our dependence rests on God. And the God of peace will crush Satan under your feet swiftly. As in 15:33, “the God of peace” is the author and conserver of peace, which is here the peace of unity in “the doctrine which you did learn” (v. 17). Like a flash the word “Satan” illumines all that Paul says about those who cause divisions and set deathtraps by means of contrary doctrines. Satan is behind their work. They are tools of his. As he deceived Eve by words that sounded good (Gen. 3:5), so they continue his work by whatever good they say of their errors, as he deceived, so do they. Help me, O God, that I may never even unconsciously lend even my little finger to Satan for this work of spreading error!

In plain allusion to Gen. 3:15, Christ’s crushing the head of the serpent, Paul says that God will crush Satan “under your feet” when he comes to you with “the evil” of false doctrine. God will use our feet as by Christ’s feet he crushed Satan. Our victory is made a continuation of Christ’s. Ἐντάχει not “shortly” (our versions), soon, as though soon after Paul’s writing Satan would invade the Roman congregation; the phrase means “swiftly.” As with a swift stamping of the feet one crushes a snake’s head, so the moment the snake’s head of false teaching would raise itself among them, the Romans will by God’s help stamp it to death.

These verses reveal the true nature of all false teaching. They deserve more attention than they often receive. Verse 17 is one of the sedes against unionism, fraternization with errorists. The entire paragraph should be used. The efforts to make Paul’s words apply only to the most fundamental errors like the denial of Christ’s deity, atonement, incarnation, resurrection, leaves the door open to a host of other errors as though these are not to be stamped out. Paul’s παρά in v. 17 covers all errors. Paul says that the seamless garment of the divine διδαχή is not even to be frayed or snagged by some errorist who acts as Satan’s finger.

The grace of our Lord Jesus Christ be with you! Omit the additions found in the A. V. On “grace” see 1:7. We see no reason for advancing hypotheses because of this benediction and its position after the admonition. Some texts repeat it as v. 24 (A.

V.), but this is evidently only a repetition made by copyists and not one made by Paul. Paul is closing with 15:33. He writes 16:1–20 as a part of that conclusion, and we have seen how the admonition against errorists flows naturally from the long line of salutations. So this benediction flows naturally from the admonition and from its final assurance that God will crush Satan under their feet. For this Paul wishes them Christ’s grace. Why this wish should preclude the greetings sent from associates of Paul is hard to see.

Right here is the place to add these greetings.

21. There salutes you Timothy, my fellow worker, and Lucius, and Jason, and Sosipater, my kinsmen. There salutes you I myself, Tertius, he who wrote this epistle in the Lord. There salutes you Gaius, host of mine and of the whole church. There salutes you Erastus, the manager of the city, and Quartus the brother.

As in 16:3–16 the verbs are always placed first, so they are here: “Salute you, salute you does so and so.” Timothy, known to Aquila and Prisca and to some other Romans, is placed first because he was Paul’s assistant, was now present with him at Corinth, and was generally known in the churches. In other epistles, which are directed to congregations with which Timothy had had personal contact because of his work, he is made joint writer with Paul, and his name appears at the head of the letter together with Paul’s.

The next three are grouped together as “my kinsmen.” They were formerly Jews (see v. 7 and 10). We know nothing further regarding Lucius. This is, of course, not Luke (= Lukas = Lucanus) who was a Gentile Christian. Jason is mentioned in Acts 17:5, etc., but whether he is the person left unnamed in 2 Cor. 8:18, 19 is doubtful. Sosipater seems to be the Sopater of Acts 20:4, one of the delegates who were to carry the great collection to Jerusalem (15:25–27).

Romans 16:22

22 Tertius, Paul’s scribe for this letter, may himself have been a former member of the Roman church, which would explain his personal salutation. Nothing further is known about him.

Romans 16:23

23 Gaius must be the individual by that name whom Paul baptized in Corinth (1 Cor. 1:14), not the Gaius of Macedonia (Acts 19:29), nor the one of Derbe (Acts 20:4), nor the one mentioned in 3 John 1, 4, 5. It was in his house, while Paul was a guest (“host of mine”) there, that Romans was written. When Paul calls him “host of the whole church,” this cannot mean that, like Aquila and Prisca, he lent his home as a meeting place for a part or for all of the Corinthian congregation, for in v. 4 the expression used is a different one. His house was open to any traveling Christian from abroad; he practiced the hospitality enjoined in 12:13 and was very likely thus known to some of the Romans.

Erastus was the οἰκονόμος of the city of Corinth. This term is used in Luke 12:42; 16:1, to designate managers of large estates; sometimes a slave was given such a high and responsible position over an estate of his master. Erastus was the treasurer of Corinth and attended to its affairs of property. He was a person of consequence in the city. It is this office of his which makes us hesitate to identify him with the Erastus mentioned in Acts 19:22, who is described as one of a number who were ministering to Paul in Ephesus. This means that these men were constant assistants of Paul.

A treasurer of Corinth could not hold his office and be Paul’s ministrant for an indefinite time in Ephesus. The Erastus mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:20 would be the one named in Acts 19:22 and not the one referred to in this verse unless this treasurer no longer held his office when 2 Tim. 4:20 was written.

We know nothing about Quartus. Since an apposition is added to the preceding names, Paul also adds one to this last name: “the brother” in the faith. This name is not to appear without some modifier. He would be a resident of Corinth, and greetings from him and from Gaius would be sent because they had friends in the congregation at Rome.

Romans 16:24

24 We cancel this verse for the reason stated in connection with v. 20b. We may add that the textual authority for the genuineness of the benediction in v. 20b is ample; for its retention as v. 24 weak but strong for its omission. Zahn retains it in both places, but he is constrained to retain it as v. 24 despite the textual evidence to the contrary because he is one of those who places v. 25–27 after the close of chapter 14. Thus without v. 24 he would have no conclusion for the entire epistle. It would take a great deal to convince us that Paul ended this his greatest letter with nothing further than a brief benediction which he repeated after having used it in a preceding verse.

Romans 16:25

25 Upon the havoc which Marcion, the heretic, played with the last two chapters of Romans, and upon the forms of the text in the various recensions now possessed by us, we need not enter here. The confusion of the hypotheses only wearies us. The result of the best textual criticism is available in the text used as a basis for the R. V., printed by Westcott and Hort, by Alexander Souter, and by others. When all is said and done, chapters 15 and 16 are genuine; chapter 16 is a part of Romans, even a vital part of it, and not a fragmentary epistle intended for the Ephesians; 16:25–27 belongs where it is and not at the end of chapter 14, and certainly not in both places; 16:25–27 is genuine and not an addition from the pen of some writer which was invented to find a suitable conclusion for an abbreviated epistle. These results stand today; and when one examines the whole field of investigation, nothing is found that may throw doubt on their genuineness; on the contrary, as one hypothesis after another is refuted, more and more proof accumulates for the genuineness of what they question.

The internal evidence for the present form of the text grows the more adequately Paul’s thought is understood. Regarding this thought of Paul’s not a few could have done better including the present writer who is free to admit that he may not have caught all of the apostle’s thought and is ready to learn more of it but wants no hypotheses.

Paul does not conclude with a benediction (15:33; 16:20bc) but with a doxology. We at once see that a doxology forms a better conclusion to the entire epistle than a benediction on the readers would. The doxology is elaborate and grand in thought and in form. We at once see that such a great doxology befits this great epistle better than one of lesser scope and of shorter form would. See the doxology combined with a benediction in Heb. 13:20, 21, and the doxology in Jude 24, 25. Paul wrote only one epistle that is as great as Romans, and the fact that he concludes this one alone with a doxology is not strange.

In Gal. 1:5; Rom. 11:36 he has brief doxologies; more weighty are those found in Eph. 3:21; Phil. 4:20; 1 Tim. 1:17. It has been well said that the one concluding Romans sums up the great thoughts of the entire epistle, “exactly harmonizing with its contents.”

To him who is able to make you firm in accord with my gospel and the proclamation of Jesus Christ, in accord with the revelation of the mystery kept silent in eternal times but now made manifest, and by means of the prophetic writings in accord with the eternal God’s order made known for faith’s obedience to all the Gentiles: to God alone wise, (he is the one) to whom through Jesus Christ the glory (belongs) to eternity! Amen.

Three expressions are outstanding: χρόνοιςαἰωνίοις—τοῦαἰωνίουΘεοῦ—εἰςτοὺςαἰῶνας first, all the eons that extend back into eternity—last, all the eons that reach forward into eternity—between them the God of all eons, past, present, and to come: “the eternal God” from eternity to eternity. This view, here compressed into one sentence, is ever Paul’s view; he ever sees things whole and not a severed part or two only, sees them all in due proportion, sees them with the light of eternity shining upon them from both sides and the eternal God above them. Those three “eon” terms are purposely placed as they are. This is not an anacoluthic sentence that runs on and closes with a lack of symmetry. It is carefully cast in thought and in wording as the grand doxology closing this epistle ought to be.

Paul is speaking of God’s ability of grace and with the term στηρίζω repeats the verb used in 1:11. In 1:11 he has the passive, “may be made firm,” with God as the subject, “to make you firm.” As we came to faith, so we come to firmness and are kept firm only by the power of divine grace. Heb. 12:9: “It is a good thing that the heart be established with grace.” The tense is the effective and we may add constative, aorist: to make effectively, permanently firm.

The two κατά phrases denote accordance (not norm, B.-P. 635): “in accord with” (not “according to,” our versions). The firmness wrought by grace in the hearts of the Romans is to match the gospel and the public heralding of its soul and center, “Jesus Christ” (objective genitive). As is the gospel, so is the firmness of the faith which embraces it; the two should correspond.

We have discussed “my gospel” in 2:16 (2 Tim. 2:8 has the same possessive) and have seen that the stress is not on the enclitic “my” as though this differentiates the gospel which Paul preached from the gospel preached by any of the other apostles. “My” does not refer to the “special gospel of St. Paul,” which as such is “not antagonistic to, but complementary to, and explanatory of, the common faith.” “My gospel” = the true gospel of which Paul, too, was an apostle as he has stated in 1:1 when he introduced himself to the Romans.

The word κήρυγμα brings out the fact that the εὐαγγέλιον or “good news” is now a public proclamation that is heralded abroad in all the world. Once, in its Old Testament form, it was confined to one nation, but now it is being made known “to all the Gentiles” by God’s own command (v. 26). “The publication (public heralding) of Jesus Christ” is the proper designation and is added to “my gospel” with epexegetical καί, as pertaining to what is now being done with it for “all the Gentiles.” We see that in this doxology term upon term is most carefully selected and placed.

The second κατά is appositional to the first and carries the correspondence of the firmness of the Romans with the gospel a necessary step farther. Their firmness, which God works, is to be “in accord with the revelation of the mystery kept silent in agelong times (χρόνοιςαἰωνίοις, dative of time)” but now made publicly known in all the world. The Greek uses no articles; but this draws attention only to the qualitative force of the terms, the modifiers making everything definite without the need of articles. This gospel, this proclamation, regard it as “revelation of mystery” which was kept silent “in agelong times.” The perfect participle marks the long extent of the silence. During all those past ages no public proclamation in the world but only silence. See how the terms correspond.

Then came “revelation” (the verb occurs in 1:16; also in 3:21). The silence is ended, the gospel now sounds forth as a world proclamation.

Romans 16:26

26 “But now made manifest, and by means of the prophetic writings made known in accord with God’s order for faith’s obedience to all the Gentiles.” “Now” = now that God’s “revelation” has come, namely in the person and the work of “Jesus Christ.” Now the mystery, revealed by God in Jesus Christ, “was made manifest,” and with the close connective τέ there is added the fact that thus it “was made known.” The participles express one idea, hence τέ (not καί) is used as the conjunction. The connection is “somewhat closer” than if καί were used (R. 1178). We cannot understand why Zahn should think that τέ is used only in correlate connections: “both—and,” τέ—τέ, or τέ—καί and that Paul had omitted the second correlative; τέ is certainly also used alone (viz., Acts 2:33; 23:24). The aorist participles denote facts: “The publication” = a making manifest plus a making known. It began when Jesus sent the apostles into all the world in order to make it resound with the gospel. This is what is meant by the phrase: “in accord with the eternal God’s order,” αἰώνιος, God who exists in the eons. This adjective is eminently in place here since Paul has just mentioned the long eons of time.

Most pertinent is the phrase: “by means of the prophetic writings.” “Writings” differentiates this means from the κήρυγμα, which is oral, the voice of the heralds, Christ’s apostles. But the apostles preached Christ or God’s revelation in Christ, but not apart from, or as different from, the Old Testament prophets. They ever preached that Christ was foretold by the prophets. Paul’s epistle constantly quotes the prophets. He must do that, for a Christ who is apart or different from the Messiah of the prophets would be a false Christ.

More lies in the phrase, namely the agelong silence that kept the mystery from the world. The prophets were not heralds to the world, they were sent only to Israel. Their writings were intended for Israel. They wrote the promises and stated that in God’s time the fulfillment would come. Now the fulfillment had come, and now at last the prophetic writings became a means for reaching the whole world. These writings were used by the apostles as indicated, had to be used thus. At various places in this epistle Paul reminds the Gentile Christians of the Jewish source of their salvation. This note is again sounded in the present phrase.

“Now … made known for faith’s obedience to all the Gentiles” plainly recalls 1:5. “The obedience of faith,” with its genitive, is explained in 1:5 as = a compound term: Glaubensgehorsam. The obedience lies in the act of believing. For this obedience, i.e., in order that it may result, the mystery revelation is made known “for all the Gentiles,” so that all these Gentile nations might hear it. Nothing is said about the Jews, for they had had the prophetic writings for ages, knew the revelation of the mystery which these writings made, and certainly also knew the fulfillment of the revelation wrought by Christ who lived, suffered, died, and rose from the dead in their own midst. This doxology includes all that. Jewish and Gentile Christians together are to hear Paul’s doxology, and are to join in it together with him.

Romans 16:27

27 The dative, “to God alone wise,” is appositional and resumes the dative with which v. 25 begins. The Greek uses the adjective in place of our adverb “only” or “alone”; compare John 3:17. “Alone wise” makes God the sole fount of wisdom and recalls 11:33 (see “wisdom”). No one who could also be called wise can be placed beside him. All who possess wisdom in any way have it as a gift from him. The implied contrast is not one with pagan gods as the R. V. might lead one to suppose: “the only wise God”; the article is absent, and all these heathen gods are not even fools, for they are imaginary, non-existent beings, “nothings,” to use Old Testament language.

In all that Paul sums up in this doxology beginning with eternity, continuing during all agelong times, and now the revelation of Christ to the world by the world proclamation of the gospel, the infinite wisdom of God is evidenced. It is like the sun shining in dazzling brightness for the little, weak eye of man. No better plan of salvation could have been conceived, nor could God’s plan have been more successfully executed. If any man faults it, he advertises only his own utter folly.

The exegetical difficulty begins at this point, and most commentators note only two perplexities, one of which they must choose with little help to guide them in either direction. One is to retain ᾧ, which is textually next to impregnable, and then to assume an anacoluthon. The other is to cancel ᾧ despite the texts and at this cost to make everything easy: “to God alone wise … (be) the glory,” etc. Some try to evade these alternatives by an assumption that is also unacceptable. The whole doxology leads up to “God,” to an ascription of “the glory” to him; but these few think that at the last moment Paul shifted the thought and after all made the ascription to Christ. And they add that “through Jesus Christ” modifies “wise,” and the words are adjusted so as to make that idea acceptable: “God who through Christ has proved himself wise.”

All that we have said regarding anacolutha in connection with 5:12 and 15:23 needs to be repeated. That Paul should end his great epistle with an anacoluthon, and with one that is as queer as this one is assumed to be, is unthinkable. The whole doxology is perfectly arranged and is not spoiled at the end. On the other hand, ᾧ dare not be cancelled. The canon that we alter the text to evade a supposed grammatical difficulty is unwarranted. Finally, the doxology is directed to God and not to Christ.

There is an old solution. Calov stated it when he regarded ᾧ as demonstrative and when he interpreted: ipsi inquam gloria. To brush this aside as not being according to the Sprachgebrauch is not in accord with this use of the Greek relative. We have a clear case in οὗ in 2:29, another in ὧν in 3:8, both are found at the end of the verse. This one is more decided. R 437 correctly calls it “the resumptive use,” for it intends to resume all that has been said about God now that “the glory” is ascribed to him: “to him, I say,” as Calov has it; or: “he is the one to whom the glory,” etc. And we need not supply εἴη or ἔστω, “be” the glory, for the Greek uses the dative with ἐστί to indicate possession.

Now we see where “through Jesus Christ” belongs: “he to whom through Jesus Christ the glory (belongs) to the eons.” The phrase is placed before the relative in order to procure greater emphasis. We ascribe the glory to God “through Jesus Christ.” He is our only Mediator even for this approach to God. “The glory” is all the glorification, honor, and praise that we are able to offer to God, all that is due him as the God who is here once more set before our hearts. “To the eons” as well as “amen” are explained in 1:25. An exact parallel to the form of this grand doxology occurs in Mart. Polyc. 20: τῷδυναμένωπάνταςἡμᾶςεἰσαγαγεῖν——διὰτοῦπαιδὸςαὐτοῦἸησοῦΧριστοῦᾧἡδόξα, τιμή, κτλ. It has this demonstrative and resumptive use of the Greek relative.

Paul ends with glory to God. So Romans ought to end: Glory to God through Jesus Christ forever. Amen.

Soli Deo Gloria

R. A Grammar of the Greek New Testament in the Light of Historical Research, by A. T. Robertson, fourth edition.

B.-P. Griechisch-Deutsches Woerterbuch zu den Schriften des Neuen Testaments, etc., von D. Walter Bauer, zweite, etc., Auflage zu Erwin Preuschens Vollstaendigem Griechisch-Deutschen Handwoerterbuch, etc.