Rufus

Ru´fus. A person of this name was one of the sons of Simon the Cyrenian, who was compelled to bear the cross of Christ (Mar 15:21): he is supposed to be the same with the Rufus to whom Paul, in writing to the Romans, sends his greeting in the remarkable words, ’Salute Rufus, chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine’ (Rom 16:13). He is said to have been one of the seventy disciples, and eventually to have had charge of the church at Thebes.

Son of Simon the Cyrenian who was constrained to carry the cross on which the Saviour was to be crucified, Mar 15:21 . If he is the same person whom Paul salutes in 1Ch 16:13, as is probable, we may see in this instance the divine blessing abiding on the household of one who befriended Christ and bore his cross.\par

Ru’fus. (red). Rufus is mentioned in Mar 15:21, as a son of Simon, the Cyrenian. Luk 23:26. (A.D. 29). Again, in Rom 16:13, the apostle Paul salutes a Rufus, whom he designates as "elect in the Lord." This Rufus was probably identical with the one to whom Mark refers.

Son of Simon the Cyrenian who bore Christ’s cross. Mark (Mar 15:21) wrote at Rome (Clemens Alex.). Now if "Rufus (whom Paul salutes as at Rome) chosen in the Lord" (Rom 16:13) be the same Rufus as Mark mentions in writing a Gospel for the Romans, the undesigned coincidence will account for what otherwise would be gratuitous information to his readers, that Simon was "father of Rufus," which the other evangelists omit, and which Mark himself seemingly turns to no advantage.

Rufus according to Paul was a disciple of note at Rome; how natural then to designate Simon, who was unknown, to the Romans by his fatherhood to one whom they well knew, Rufus! Mark gives the Romans whom he addresses a reference for the truth of the narrative of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection to one who was accessible to them all, and who could attest the facts on the authority of his own father, the reluctant bearer of the Lord’s cross (Luk 23:26). The "compelling" of him to bear the cross issued in his voluntarily taking up his own cross to follow Jesus; then through Simon followed his wife’s conversion, and that of Rufus whose mother by nature she was, as she was Paul’s mother by kindnesses bestowed for Christ’s sake. "Salute Rufus ... and his mother and mine."

[Ru’fus]

1. Son of Simon, the Cyrenian, who was compelled to bear the Lord’s cross. Mar 15:21.

2. A believer in Rome to whom Paul sent a salutation. Rom 16:13. Possibly the same as No. 1

RUFUS.—See Alexander and Rufus.

RULE

1. (a) ἀρχή.—Luk 20:20 παραδοῦναι αὐτὸν τῇ ἀρχῇ καὶ τῇ ἐξουσίᾳ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος, ‘to deliver him up to the rule and to the authority of the governor’ (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 )—ἀρχή = principatus, ἐξουσία = magistratus or munus (Stephanus, Thesaurus, ed. Hase-Dindorf). Here ἀρχή ‘relates to Pilate’s position and authority [as procurator], ἐξουσία to the executive power connected therewith’ (Cremer, Lex. 115, 237). Pilate’s remitting our Lord to ‘Herod’s jurisdiction’ (Luk 23:7 ἐξουσίας) was intended as an act of civility to a reigning prince (‘Jesus of Nazareth’ being under Herod’s tetrarchate), and perhaps also in order to gain time.

ἀρχή and ἐξουσία are also used together of earthly rulers, Luk 12:11, Tit 3:1; of the ranks of the angelic hosts, Eph 3:10, Col 1:16; Col 2:10; of the powers of evil, Eph 6:12, Col 2:15; apparently incl. of both heavenly and earthly powers, 1Co 15:24, Eph 1:21.

(b) ἄρχειν.—Mar 10:42 ‘Ye know that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles (οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν: in || Mat 20:25 οἱ ἄρχοντες) lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over them’ (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ). Lk. reports that words of similar import were spoken at the parting meal, 22:25. οἱ δοκοῦντες ἄρχειν may mean ‘they who are supposed to rule,’ with the implication that they are not rulers in the true sense of the word.* [Note: There are parallels to this idea in Plato: e.g. Rep. 336 A, the tyrant is one who μέγα οἴετκι δύνασθαι: he and his like have really no power (Gorg. 467 A). For the use of δοκοῦντες, cf. Rep. 406 C, ἐπὶ δὲ τῶν τλοαυσίων τε καὶ εὐδαιμόνων δοκούντων εἶναι οὐκ αἰσθανόμεθα, also 420 A, 423 C. Sometimes, however, in classical Greek δοκεῖν does not exclude the reality: e.g. Plato, Rep. 539 A, and Soph. OT 402. [Note by the late Dr. Adam of Cambridge].]

Swete (St. Mark, 239) renders ‘they who are regarded as rulers,’ and says that our Lord ‘did not admit that the power of such a ruler as Tiberius was a substantial dignity: it rested on a reputation that might be suddenly wrecked, as indeed the later history of the Empire clearly proved.’ Cf. Harnack (What is Christianity? 106) and Gould (Com. on Mk. 202) for a somewhat similar view.

In Gal 2:2; Gal 2:6; Gal 2:9 οἱ δοκοῦντες, Lightfoot thinks (Com. on Gal. 107), is ‘depreciatory,—not indeed of the Twelve themselves, but of the extravagant and exclusive claims set up for them by the Judaizers.’ The Gr. commentators, however, do not find ‘any shade of blame or irony in the expression’ (see Ellicott, Gal. 24^b). Cf. also Ramsay (Com. on Gal. 289, 300), who renders, ‘the acknowledged leaders,’ and shows that the interpretation, ‘the so-called leaders,’ is opposed to the spirit of the narrative.

The two passages referred to by Winer (Gram. NT^{8 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} p. 766) are important: Sus 5 χριτῶν οἵ ἰδόχουν χυβερνᾷν τὸν λαότ, ‘judges who were accounted or recognized as governing the people’; Josephus Ant. xix. vi. 3 οἱ δοκοῦντες αὐτῶν ἐξέχειν, ‘they who are recognized as outstanding men among them.’ In these passages the phrase appears to be used, without any disparagement being implied, in speaking of recognized authorities, or persons of admitted eminence.* [Note: This is the usage in class. Gr., e.g. Eurip. Hec. 295, where αἱ δοχοῦντες is opposed to οἱ ἀδοξοῦντες; Plato, Euthyd. 303 C, τῶν σεμνῶν χαὶ δοχούντών τι εἶναι, ‘the grave and reverend seigniors’ (Jowett’s tr.).]

In the words κατακυριεύουσιν and κατεξουσιάζουσιν,—the latter found only here and in || Mt.—an unfavourable judgment is passed upon the manner in which ‘the recognized rulers’ exercise their authority. ‘Civium non servitus sed tutela tradita est.’ ‘Our Lord spoke at a time when free government all over the world lay crushed beneath the military despotism of Rome’ (EBr [Note: Br Encyclopaedia Britannica.] xi. 11). There was present to His mind the fundamental law of His Kingdom, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’ (Joh 18:36).

But our Lord’s words do not exhibit that ‘moral hatred of all the visible power of the world regarded as a vast selfish manifestation and embodiment of evil,’ which finds expression in the following passage from one of the letters of Gregory vii. (he is writing to Herman of Metz, one of his partisans): ‘Who can be ignorant that kings and nobles took their beginning from those who, not knowing God, by their pride, robberies, perfidy, and murders, in short, by almost every kind of crime, no doubt at the suggestion of the prince of this world, the devil, have in blind ambition and intolerable presumption had a mind to tyrannize over other men who are undoubtedly their equals?’ Milman asks, ‘Are we reading a journalist of Paris in 1791?’ (Latin Christianity, iii. 191; cf. Mozley’s Sermon on ‘The Roman Council,’ Univ. Serm, p. 1).

Our Lord, it is true, speaks of the exercise of domination and coercion that is characteristic of the rulers of the Gentiles as an example to be avoided by His disciples as members of a Kingdom not of this world: ‘so shall it not be among you.’ With them, greatness is to come through ministering love (cf. art. Minister, 3). At the same time, in His great saying, Mar 12:17,—a saying which reveals that the whole domain of duty lay open before Him,—our Lord teaches that a kingdom of this world, even the principality of a Tiberius, has its own sphere of right, and that when it keeps within it, and exercises its administrative functions,—of which the levying of tribute is a representative instance,—it is to be obeyed without demur. This saying was probably present to the mind of St. Paul when he wrote, under Nero (but in the earlier and better part of his reign), his weighty exposition of the ethics of citizenship (Rom 13:1-7).

2. ποιμαίνειν.—Mat 2:6 ‘And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda, art not the least among the princes of Juda: for out of thee shall come a Governor, that shall rule (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ‘be shepherd of’) my people Israel’ (ὅστις ποιμανεῖ τὸν λαόν μου τὸν Ἰσραήλ). Here three things demand our attention.

(i.) Mic 5:2 (1 Heb.) and its context.—Like his older contemporary Isaiah (Isaiah 9, 11), Micah looks forward to the end of the Assyrian invasion as the time when the Messianic hope shall be fulfilled.

‘The daughter of Zion must pass through the pangs of labour before her true king is born; she must come forth from the city and dwell in the open field; there, and not within her proud ramparts, Jehovah will grant her deliverance from her enemies. For a time the land shall be given up to the foe, but only for a time. Once more, as in the days of David, guerilla bands gather together to avenge the wrongs of their nation (Mic 5:1). A new David comes forth from little Bethlehem, and the rest of his brethren return to the children of Israel—that is, the kindred Hebrew nations again accept the sway of the new king, who stands and feeds his flock in the strength of Jehovah, in the majesty of the name of Jehovah his God. Then Assyria shall no longer insult Jehovah’s land with impunity’ (W. R. Smith, The Prophets of Israel 1, 291).

This being the meaning of the prophecy, it is evident that it was never literally fulfilled. But when we look at the deeper side of the Messianic hope which it sets forth—the heart-felt longing for a true Kingdom of God, ‘the perception that that Kingdom can never be realized without a personal centre, a representative of God with man and man with God,’ who shall attain to true greatness through humility—we see that the purpose which was in the mind of God, when He moved the prophet to write, was fulfilled in the highest sense when He sent His Son into the world, and when Jesus Christ entered, by being born and that in a low condition, on that life of humiliation that led to His exaltation to the place of power, and will finally lead to ‘all things being put under His feet.’

(ii.) The quotation in Mt.—It is not in verbal agreement with the LXX Septuagint or with the Heb. text. The most important differences from the latter are the following:—

(α) Instead of צָעִיר לִחְיוֹת, lit. ‘little for being’ (‘a town too small to be reckoned as a canton in Judah,’ W. R. Smith, l.c.), Mt. has οὐδαμῶς ἐλαχίστη εἶ, ‘art in no wise least’ (Revised Version NT 1881, OT 1885 ). Turpie (OT in the New, 190) translates the Heb. ‘And art thou, Bethlehem, little for being (=so little as not to be) among the thousands of Juda?’—following Grotius (Opera, ii., Amst. 1679), who received the suggestion from Pesh., where the clause is rendered interrogatively. Others conjecture that a לֹא has dropped out of the Heb. text (cf. W. C. Allen in ExpT [Note: xpT Expository Times.] xii. [1901] 283; Com. on Mt. p. 13). These suggested emendations are unnecessary. Micah says that the ideal king is to come out of Bethlehem, a town held in little estimation; and Mt., in view of the dignity bestowed on the town by the birth of Christ, says, ‘Thou art by no means the least.’ They agree in spirit.

(β) The words of Micah, ‘he that is to be ruler in Israel,’ are expanded by Mt. into ‘a ruler who shall be shepherd of my people Israel.’ He thus introduces into his quotation the words of the promise to David, ‘And thou shalt be shepherd of (תִּרְעֶה) my people Israel’ (2Sa 5:2 || 1Ch 11:2). But in Mic 5:4 (3 Heb.) the words, ‘And he shall stand and be shepherd of’ (וְרָעָה), are a reminiscence of the promise to David. The Evangelist simply gives the promise at full length.

To most Biblical scholars these differences will not seem of much account. The quotations in the NT are an important subject of study, but it is not now considered necessary, in the interests of revelation, to make out a verbal correspondence between these quotations and their OT equivalents. See art. Quotations.

(iii.) The nature of Christ’s rule as set forth by ποιμαίνειν.—רָעָה is first applied to God by Jacob, Gen 48:15, (‘who shepherded me’), Gen 49:24 (prob. ‘the shepherd of the stone of Israel,’ and = ‘the God of Bethel’ [Driver, Gen. [Note: Geneva NT 1557, Bible 1560.] ^{1 [Note: designates the particular edition of the work referred]} Addenda xvii]). His people are ‘the sheep of his pasture’ (Psa 95:7; Psa 100:3); He led them and fed them in the wilderness as a shepherd (Psa 77:20; Psa 78:52; Psa 80:1, Hos 13:5 [LXX Septuagint ] ἐποίμαινόν σε ἐν τῇ ἐρήμῳ, Isa 63:11, Jer 2:2 ‘thou wentest after me’—the shepherd leading); He will bring them back from the Dispersion (Eze 34:12, cf. Psa 147:2); His care for His flock comprehends the most considerate tending of individuals (Psa 23:1-3 a, Isa 40:11, Psa 119:176 seeking the lost sheep). To David, as His vicegerent, He commits the care of His flock (2Sa 5:2, Psa 78:71), and He will yet set up one shepherd over them, who shall be pre-eminent in those qualities which David in a large measure manifested as a ruler (Mic 5:4, Eze 34:23; Eze 37:24, Psa 2:9 [LXX Septuagint , following Pesh., ποιμανεῖς αὐτοὺς ἐν ῥάβδῳ σιδηρᾷ, so quoted Rev 2:27; Rev 12:5; Rev 19:15; cf. Briggs, Com. on Psalms, i. 22]). To Mt. this shepherd is Jesus Christ, and it is fitting that in this early chapter he should employ this title respecting Him whose life on earth, as set forth in the succeeding chapters of his Gospel, was to illustrate so abundantly His shepherd-rule in its tenderness and strength. Christ is the compassionate Shepherd (Mat 9:36; Mat 15:24); His flock fear no evil, because He is with them (Luk 12:32); He goes after that which is lost till He finds it (Mat 12:11, Luk 15:4-6); He is the noble (καλός) Shepherd, who gives His life for His sheep (Joh 10:2; Joh 10:11; Joh 10:16), who provides for their being fed and tended after His departure to heaven (Joh 21:15-17; cf. Act 20:28, Eph 4:11, 1Pe 5:2), and who still carries on in glory His own work as ‘the great shepherd of the sheep’ (Heb 13:20) and the ἀρχιποίμην (1Pe 5:4—a title combining the two words of our present study);—moreover, their being under His shepherd-rule will be the blessedness and joy of His people to all eternity (Rev 7:17).

It is well known that τοιμαινειν is a favourite figure with Greek writers to denote the kingly office. Plato is very fond of the comparison; see Rep. 343 A with the note in Adam’s ed. (Camb. 1902). In a passage in the Nicom. Ethics (viii. 11), Aristotle refers to Homer’s well-known words, εὖ γὰρ ποιεῖ τοὺς βασιλευομένους, εἱτερ ἀγαθὸς ὦν ἑτιμελεῖται αὐτῶν, ἵν εὖ πραττωσιν, ὦστερ νομεὺς τροβατων · ὁθεν καὶ Ὅμηρος τον Ἀγαμέμνονα τοιμένα λαῶν εἶπεν. ‘It seems to me desirable,’ Dr. Adam observes, ‘whenever possible, to quote classical Greek parallels to the figures of the NT, as well as parallels from the Hebrew: the use of figures already familiar to the Greeks cannot but have made the NT writings more acceptable to Greek readers.’

James Donald.

By: Isidore Singer, Samuel Krauss

Roman general in the first century of the common era. In the battles after Herod's death the Romans were assisted against the Jews by the 3,000 "men of Sebaste," the flower of the royal army and a troop which afterward became famous. The cavalry in this body was led by Rufus (Josephus, "B. J." ii. 3, § 4), while the infantry was under the command of Gratus. Rufus and Gratus maintained their resistance until the legate Varus appeared in Jerusalem with reenforcements (ib. 5, § 2; comp. idem, "Ant." xvii. 10, § 3).

RUFUS.—1. The brother of Alexander and son of Simon of Cyrene (Mar 15:21 only). 2. A Christian at Rome greeted by St. Paul (Rom 16:13) as ‘the chosen in the Lord,’ together with ‘his mother and mine.’ It has been conjectured that these two are the same person, that Simon’s widow (?) had emigrated to Rome with her two sons, where they became people of eminence in the Church, and that this is the reason why the brothers are mentioned by St. Mark, who probably wrote in Rome.

A. J. Maclean.

rōō´fus (Ῥοῦφος, Rhoúphos): The name is mentioned twice: (1) Simon of Cyrene, who was compelled to bear the cross of Jesus, is “the father of Alexander and Rufus” (Mar 15:21); (2) Paul sends greetings to Roman Christians, “Rufus the chosen in the Lord, and his mother and mine” (Rom 16:13). Rufus was well known among those for whom Mark primarily wrote his Gospel, and according to tradition this was the Christian community at Rome. There seems no reason to doubt, therefore, that the Rufus of Mark and the Rufus of Paul are the same person. The name, meaning “red,” “reddish,” was, however, one of the commonest of slave names; the identification of these two is therefore merely a conjecture. The Rufus whom Paul greets is “the chosen in the Lord,” i.e. “that choice Christian” (Denhey). Since all Christians are “chosen,” this title must express some distinction. The mother of Rufus had played the mother’s part to Paul on some occasion of which we are ignorant, hence the phrase “his mother and mine” (compare Mar 10:30).

(Ñïῦöïò, a common Latin name)

1. In Mar_15:21 Rufus is named as the son of Simon the Cyrenian, who was compelled to carry the Cross of Jesus to the place of crucifixion (cf. Mat_27:32, Luk_23:26). Another son, Alexander, is mentioned, and, as the name of Rufus comes second, he was probably the younger of the two. St. Mark gives no further information with regard to them, and it would seem that they must have been known to the readers for whom he intended his Gospel. If, as is generally held, he wrote in Rome for Roman Christians, Alexander and Rufus may have been at the time resident in the city and prominent members of the Church. Simon was evidently a Hellenistic Jew (cf. Act_2:10; Act_6:9; Act_13:1), who gave his sons Gentile names.

2. In Rom_16:13 a certain Rufus is saluted by St. Paul. If we admit the Roman destination of these salutations it is natural to wish to identify 1 and 2, but the name is so common that there are no real grounds for doing so. Rufus is described as ‘the chosen in the Lord’ (ôὸí ἐêëåêôὸí ἐí êõñßῳ), a phrase applicable to every Christian (Col_3:12, etc.), but perhaps peculiarly appropriate in his case on account of ‘special circumstances, in which a striking intervention of the Divine grace had been recognised, by which his conversion was effected’ (C. von Weizsäcker, Apostolic Age, Eng. translation 2, i. [1897] 395). Possibly, however, the meaning is rather ‘eminent as a Christian’ (Sanday-Headlam, International Critical Commentary , ‘Romans’5, 1900, p. 427), i.e. distinguished among his fellow-Christians in character and usefulness. The only other Christians so described in the NT are ‘the elect lady’ and her sister in 2Jn_1:13. Coupled with Rufus in the salutation is ‘his mother and mine’ (ôὴí ìçôÝñá áὐôïῦ êáὶ ἐìïῦ). The allusion has generally been supposed to mean that ‘this nameless woman had done a mother’s part, somehow and somewhere, to the motherless Missionary’ (H. C. G. Moule, Expositor’s Bible, ‘Romans,’ 1894, p. 429) and that he felt towards her ever afterwards as a son. The Apostle had not visited Rome before writing his Epistle to the Roman Christians. If, therefore, we regard Romans 16 as an integral part of ‘Romans,’ we shall place this mother and her son elsewhere at the time when she showed kindness to St. Paul, and imagine that later they became residents in Rome. It is perhaps easier to believe that Ephesus was the scene of the woman’s hospitality and care, and that the greeting is directed to Rufus and his mother in that city.

T. B. Allworthy.

(Romans 16)

- This Rufus may be the same Rufus as the son of Simon of Cyrene who carried the cross of Jesus to Calvary some 25 years earlier (Mark 15:21)