Tertius: Writer of Romans (Romans 16:22)

Who wrote the letter of Romans for Paul? Tertius (Romans 16:22)

The Epistle to the Romans is Paul’s magnum opus; the weightiest, longest and most influential of the apostle’s writings. It is the only letter that he wrote to a church that he did not found and as such it lays the foundation for his doctrine and systematic theology. In many ways, the epistle functions as Paul’s resume, introducing himself to the church at Rome in hopes of future collaboration (Romans 1:10-12, 15, 15:24, 28).

Like many of Paul’s letters, Romans concludes with personal greetings. On the surface, the material seems inconsequential, like a long list of people to whom “Goober says hey!” on The Andy Griffith Show (1960-68). Given the perceived lack of relevance, these postscripts are often neglected when reading or studying the biblical text.

Like the letter itself, this section of Romans is longer than its counterparts in any of Paul’s other canonical epistles. Amid these copious greetings, a scribe emerges from behind the scenes to send his own salutations. Tertius (pronunciation: TER-tee-us) nonchalantly interjects his own address and notes that it is he who has physically penned the document (Romans 16:22).

I, Tertius, who write this letter, greet you in the Lord. (Romans 16:22 NASB)

Tertius’ bold interjection disrupts the letter (Romans 16:22). Though there is nothing in the salutation’s tone to indicate that it does not follow standard operating procedure, this awkward intrusion represents an anomaly. As is typical of Greco-Roman writers, Paul does not customarily identify his secretaries, known as amanuenses, by name. In fact, this is the only instance of a named amanuensis in all of Paul’s canonical writings. Even more strikingly, it is not Paul but the stenographer himself who makes the reference.

Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) asserts:

The most interesting remark in this section of the text historically is found in Romans 16:22. In a move which is quite unusual in the Pauline letters, the writer of the letter, Tertius, takes the opportunity of giving a personal greeting. (Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 254)

Though unusual for Paul, having a scribe interject is not entirely unparalleled. James R. Edwards (b. 1945) compares:

It was common in rabbinic literature to mention the name of an amanuensis, but one can sense Tertius’ special pride in being the transcriber of such a monumental work. (Edwards, Romans (Understanding the Bible Commentary Series), 361)

Paul’s permitting Tertius to embed greetings is like a master painter allowing a novice to add a stroke to a masterpiece. F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) speculates:

At this point Tertius may have handed the pen to Paul. The sender of a letter in antiquity, after dictating most of it, frequently wrote the last few words in his own hand. Such an autograph (not necessarily, and indeed not usually, his signature) was Paul’s authenticating mark in all his letters (II Thessalonians 3:17). We may, then, envisage Paul writing the remainder of the letter himself, perhaps in the ‘large letters’ to which he draws attention in Galatians 6:11 (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 265)

Somewhat conspicuously, Paul recognizes no coauthor to the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 1:1). E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) observes:

Paul’s letter to the Romans had no coauthor, and yet Timothy was present during its composition (Romans 16:21). Romans is the only letter where Paul states that Timothy was present but does not also name him as a coauthor [Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1; I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1]. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

Despite having no formal coauthor, there are more hands in the kitchen when cooking up Romans than is typically imagined.

While Paul is undisputedly the author of the letter (Romans 1:1), the physical act of writing the epistle is performed by Tertius (Romans 16:22). At this time, it was not uncommon for an amanuensis to compose documents. Romans features the clearest indication of Paul’s utilizing such a transcriber (Romans 16:22) though it is often assumed that the apostle employed amanuenses in other letters. Four times Paul signs off with a greeting which he emphasizes is written by his own hand, implying that the remainder of the correspondence was penned by another (I Corinthians 16:21; Galatians 6:11; Colossians 4:18; II Thessalonians 3:17). Some have speculated that Paul used an amanuensis due to a preexisting eye condition, perhaps stemming from his conversion experience (Acts 9:7-9, 17-19). In Galatians, Paul himself notes the John Hancockian size of his penmanship (Galatians 6:11).

Amanuenses were trained to write small and neatly in an era where paper was scarce and expensive. Daniel M. Gurtner (b. 1973) chronicles:

The employment of an amanuensis was a common practice in antiquity. Cicero [106-43 BCE] frequently dictated letters to his secretary, Tiro [103-4 BCE], as did other classical writers to theirs. Caesar [100-4 BCE] also seemed to have one (Plutatch [45-120], Vita Caesaris 17.3), as did many others (Pliny [23-79], Epistulae 3.4, 9.36; Quintilian [35-100], Institutio Oratoria 10,3,19). In addition, many papyrus letters preserved from Paul’s day were written by secretaries, with a final greeting or closing matter written in the hand of the sender. (Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], Acts-Philemon (Bible Knowledge Background Commentary), 244)

In employing an amanuensis, Paul composed Romans according to the writing conventions of his day. One of the reasons for the prevalence of amanuenses was the skill set needed to write in the ancient world. Primitive pens and paper made printing legibly a challenge.

C. Marvin Pate (b. 1952) inventories:

Writing materials during this time period included a stylus for writing on wax tablets, and pen and ink for writing on surfaces such as papyrus, vellum, boards, or pottery. (Pate, Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series), 8)

Prior to Johannes Gutenberg (1395-1468)’s invention of movable type (1454), all copies had to be produced painstakingly by hand. It is from this process that the term “manuscript” (manu [“hand”]-script) developed. As such, writing came at great cost in terms of both time and money.

Michael P. Middendorf (b. 1959) comments:

The use of a scribe, amanuensis, or secretary like Tertius was common in Paul’s day. It appears that Paul regularly utilized one...Part of this was due to, and also affected by, the cost of producing a letter of exceptional length like Romans, since a scribe could write more succinctly in a smaller hand that was also more legible. Leon Morris [1914-2006] cites the following statistics: “In the papyri private letters range in length from 18 words to 209. More literary letters tend to be longer, the subject matter obviously having an influence on length. Cicero [106-43 BCE]’s 796 letters average 295 words with a range from 22 to 2,530, while Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE]’s 124 letters range from 149 to 4,134 words with an average length of 995 words. The New Testament letters tend to be longer, though II and III John are quite short. The 13 Pauline letters average around 1,300 words. Clearly Paul took letter writing very seriously and made it much more of a vehicle for significant teaching than did most people of the ancient world. Romans is his longest letter, with about 7,100 words. Its length as well as the profundity of its subject matter marks it out as a most unusual letter.” (Middendorf, Romans 1-8 (Concordia Commentary), 3-4)

Some have approximated an amanuensis’ pace to be seventy words per hour. Craig S. Keener (b. 1960) appraises:

Given the time necessary to take normal dictation in antiquity (shorthand being unavailable), Paul may have taken over eleven hours to dictate this letter to Tertius, its scribe (Romans 16:22). Since such a major undertaking probably involved more than one draft (and Paul could draw on his preaching experience), the final draft may have taken less than this estimate, but the total time invested in the letter was probably greater. Given the cost of papyrus and of the labor required (though Tertius, a believer, might have donated his services), one scholar estimates the cost of Romans at 20.68 denarii, which he calculates as roughly $2275 in recent US currency. In other words, Paul did not simply offer this project as an afterthought; Romans is a carefully premeditated work. (Keener, Romans (New Covenant Commentary Series), 1-2)

C. Marvin Pate (b. 1952) investigates:

E. Randolph Richards [b. 1958] provides three intriguing details about Paul’s letter to the Romans: it would have cost approximately $2,275 (in modern currency); the travel time to deliver a letter from Corinth to Rome by sea would have been about ten days; the same letter would have taken about two months to travel by land from Corinth to Rome. (Pate, Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series), 322)

Romans is lengthy, a book in the true sense of the word. Its transcription would have been arduous work. Perhaps Tertius’ greetings are Paul’s way of rewarding his amanuensis for days of intensive labor.

Tertius describes himself as the one “who wrote” (CEV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, MSG, NKJV), “who write(s)” (ASV, NASB), “who wrote down” (NIV), “the writer” (NRSV, RSV) or the “one writing” (NLT) Romans as opposed to “translator” or “interpreter”. Still, there is nothing in the Greek vocabulary (grapho) to indicate the extent of Tertius’ involvement in the composition.

Though no one doubts that Tertius serves as amanuensis, the exact role he plays has been the subject of much debate as the scope of the position varied greatly. C. Marvin Pate (b. 1952) inspects:

E. Randolph Richards [b. 1958]’s study of ancient letter writing shows that there was a continuum of how much input amanuenses had in the composition of a letter, moving from little control (dictation), to some control (shorthand), to complete control (composer). (Pate, Romans (Teach the Text Commentary Series), 321)

C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) expounds:

That Romans 16:22...was not composed by Paul is clear. Recent commentators have for the most part been content to say simply that Paul was in the habit of dictating his letters. But it is necessary to ask whether Tertius means by ὁ γράψας τὴν ἐπιστολήν (i) that he wrote the letter in long-hand to Paul’s dictation, or (ii) that he took it down in shorthand as Paul dictated it and then subsequently wrote it out in long-hand, or (iii) that, acting as a much more independent secretary, he himself composed the letter in accordance with Paul’s instructions. (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 2)

The least likely possibility is that Paul allowed Tertius the freedom to compose the letter based on the apostle’s outline, a function comparable to the modern ghostwriter. Notably, Otto Roller (1871-1936) endorsed this stance in his 1933 book Das formular der paulinischen Briefe: ein Beitrag sur Lehre vom antiken Briefe.

C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) summarizes:

Otto Roller [1871-1936]...maintained that the normal practice was either to write one’s own personal letters in one’s own hand (especially if they were short) or else—and this was more often done—to entrust the writing to a secretary, who would himself compose the letter on the basis of the instructions given him; that the dictation of letters (in the sense of the dictation of the full text of the letter as the scribe wrote) was exceptional, since the extreme laboriousness and slowness of writing on papyrus with such pen and ink as were available made such dictation excessively tedious and time-consuming; that shorthand was not used as early as Paul’s time for taking down letters from dictation. With regard to Romans, in particular, he further argued that the fact that Tertius composed Romans 16:22 independently itself gives rise to doubts as to whether Paul dictated Romans 16:21 and Romans 16:23—and, in fact, the rest of the letter; and that the chiastic arrangement of Romans 1:8-15 and Romans 15:28-33 (prayer—proposed visit in the one and proposed visit—prayer in the other) suggests composition by a secretary familiar with the stylistic convention that the beginning and conclusion of the ‘context’ of a letter should correspond, since this phenomenon occurs in no other Pauline letter. He also suggested that some of the anacolutha and other unevennesses to be found in the Pauline epistles may be the result of Paul’s own additions to, and corrections of, the drafts submitted for approval...But Roller’s arguments and the mass of fascinating illustrative material he brought together fall a long way short of proving that alternatives (i) and (ii) must be ruled out. (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 2-3)

Roller’s position is still decidedly in the minority and naturally generated criticism. Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) archives:

Otto Roller [1871-1936]’s work has not gone without serious criticism; see Ernst Percy [b. 1901], Die Probleme der Kolosser- und Epheserbriefe, Acts regiae societalis humaniorum litterarum lundensis 39 [Lund: Gleerup, 1946], 10; Wilhelm Michaelis [1896-1965], Einleitung in das Neue Testament [Bern: Haller, 1946], 242-44; 2nd edition [1954], 251; J.N. Sevenster [1900-1991], Do You Know Greek?, Novum Testamentum Supplements 19 [Leiden: Brill, 1968], 12. (Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible), 41)

It is safe to say that most interpreters do not perceive Paul playing Christian to Tertius’ Cyrano, allowing the apostle to present another’s eloquence as his own as in Edmond Rostand [1868-1918] ’s Cyrano de Begerac (1897).

Others, most famously William Sanday (1843-1920) and Arthur C. Headlam (1862-1947), have posited that Tertius functioned more like the modern court report, jotting Paul’s words in shorthand before expanding later.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) reviews:

William Sanday [1843-1920] and Arthur C. Headlam [1862-1947] (Romans, lx) had opted for dictation of the letter to Tertius, who would have taken it down in shorthand and then written it out in longhand. They argued for this mode of dictation on the basis of the way that Origen [184-253]’s lectures were taken down and subsequently copied, as described in Eusebius [263-339], Historia ecclesiastica 6.23.2. Tachygraphy or shorthand writing was used in the ancient Greek-speaking world of the eastern Mediterranean area; legend ascribes it to Xenophon [430-354 BCE], but an example of it, as yet undeciphered, has been found even in Palestine. It occurs in a text written on skin discovered in a Murabba‘at cave, dating from the early second century A.D. (see Pierre Benoit [1906-1997], “Document”). (Fitzmyer, Romans (Anchor Bible), 41-42)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) supports:

Often cited is Seneca [4 BCE-65 CE]’s reference to “the shorthand symbols by means of which even a rapidly delivered speech is taken down and the hand is able to keep up with the quickness of the tongue” (Epistulae 90.25). “The practice was widespread in the empire” (E. Randolph Richards [b. 1958], Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collectio; further 67-74; earlier Secretary in the Letters of Paul 26-43; Jerome Murphy-O’Connor [b. 1935], Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills 8-13). (William H. Brackney [b. 1948] and Craig A. Evans [b. 1952], “How the New Testament Began”, From Biblical Criticism to Biblical Faith: Essays in Honor of Lee Martin McDonald [b. 1942], 130)

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) speculates that Tertius may have been a notarius, a public secretary with authority to draw up official documents (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 31). He questions:

Perhaps Tertius was not used because Romans was so long, but actually Romans was so long because Tertius was a professional secretary. He may well have been trained in Greek shorthand (tachygraphy), since Rome was most known for housing professional stenographers. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

There is debate as to whether tachygraphy was even in practice at the time and region of Romans’ composition. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) considers:

Otto Roller [1871-1936] maintains that there is no certain evidence of the existence of Greek tachygraphy earlier than the middle of the second century A.D. (The evidence for Latin tachygraphy is earlier.) But the fact that Cicero [106-43 BCE] used a Greek expression to denote shorthand-writing in a letter to Titus Pomponius Atticus [112-35 BCE] strongly suggests that he derived the art from Greeks. Whatever we make of the tradition that Xenophon [430-354 BCE]...invented shorthand–-we might perhaps think of him taking down a few sentences at a time in this way and then writing them out in long-hand while Paul thought out his next few sentences—cannot be ruled out. (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 4)

Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) rejects:

Tertius could have take dictation from the apostle in stages in Greek shorthand and then subsequently expanded it and presented it to Paul for his additions and corrections...The fact that there are sentences in the letter which remain incomplete (so-called anacoluthons), as in Romans 2:20, 5:6, 12, 9:22ff, rather speaks against it. (Stuhlmacher, Paul's Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 254)

Most interpreters envision Paul maintaining strict creative control and veto power over the content of Romans with the apostle closely monitoring Tertius. He is given sole writing credit (Romans 16:1) while elsewhere he freely shares authorship (I Corinthians 1:1; II Corinthians 1:1; Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:1I Thessalonians 1:1; II Thessalonians 1:1; Philemon 1:1).

There is precedence for such strict dictation. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) presents:

The last sentences of Cicero [106-43 BCE]’s letter of 12 July 45 B.C. to his friend Atticus [112-35 BCE], in which he speaks of a letter he had written to the exceedingly fastidious Varro [116-27 BCE], show that Cicero judged it wiser, where it was specially important that the expression of his thought should be absolutely right, to dictate ‘syllabatim’ to Spintharus than to entrust the drafting to his highly competent and beloved secretary Tiro [103-4 BCE], though he apparently found this very tiresome. In view of the special importance and special difficulty of its subject matter and also in view of its occasion, it hardly seems particularly unlikely that Paul would dictate his letter to the Roman church—in spite of its very much greater length—in the way Cicero dictated his letter to Varro. After all, though he may not have thought that he was producing a κτημα ἐς αἰεί he must surely have hoped that his letter would on more than one occasion be read and listened to with a good deal of attention by the Christians of Rome, and that they would ponder it and discuss it amongst themselves. Moreover, with regard to the slowness of such dictation, it is surely likely that even Paul would be unable to formulate such a letter at any great speed...May not Paul have needed quite as much time to compose it as did Tertius to write it? (Cranfield, Romans, Volume 1: I-VIII), 3-4)

There is also linguistic evidence that suggests that Romans is dictated. Gary M. Burge (b. 1952), Lynn H. Cohick (b. 1962) and Gene L. Green (b. 1951) detect:

Most likely Paul dictated Romans to Tertius. The study of letter writing in antiquity shows that the repetition of the word “for” (gar in Greek) signals a process of dictation—and it occurs 144 times in Romans. Furthermore, Romans closely resembles some of Paul’s other letters, which probably had different scribes. (Burge, Cohick and Green, The New Testament in Antiquity: A Survey of the New Testament within Its Cultural Context, 326)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) resolves:

It is intrinsically unlikely that Paul would surrender the specific contents of Romans to Tertius. The letter was of great import to Paul, and its careful structure suggests that he fussed over the details. Indeed, the ever present γάρ (gar, for) suggests a dictated text (Joseph A. Fitzmyer [b. 1920] 1993c:42). The style of Romans fits with Paul’s other letters that are accepted as authentic, and there is no evidence that Tertius composed those. In conclusion, Romans should be accepted as the product of Paul’s dictation to Tertius, and the question whether it was first composed in shorthand or longhand should be left open. (Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 2-3)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) supports:

While many gave their amanuenses great freedom in writing their letters, the similarity of style in Galatians, Romans and the Corinthian correspondence probably means Paul dictated his (so Peter Stuhlmacher [b. 1932] 1994; Douglas J. Moo [b. 1950] 1996, Thomas R. Schreiner [b. 1954] 1998). (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 416)

While Paul may not have known the long-term impact that Romans would have, he was well aware of its immediate significance. This letter was simply too important to leave anything to chance.

Regardless of methodology, the precision of Romans’ construction is undeniable. Richard N. Longenecker (b. 1930) concludes:

Whether Tertius should be viewed as having written down Paul’s dictation in longhand “syllable by syllable,” as C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915] postulates, or as having taken Paul’s dictation in shorthand and then written it out in longhand, as William Sanday [1843-1920] and Arthur C. Headlam [1862-1947] proposed, Paul’s letter to the Christians at Rome gives every indication of having been carefully composed by him in both its arguments and its diction — that is, in both it content and its wording. (Longenecker, Introducing Romans: Critical Issues in Paul's Most Famous Letter, 10)

Tertius may have had a greater impact on Romans than is typically thought. He has been used as a catch-all for potential textual problems in the letter. John Hugh Michael (1878-1959) pinpoints problematic words or phrases that occur in different contexts and posits that the repetition may be owed to dictation (A Phenomenon in the Text of Romans).

More favorably, Frank J. Matera (b. 1942) imagines:

Dictating the letter to Tertius would have allowed Paul an opportunity to test phrases out loud for rhetorical effect before Tertius wrote them. (Matera, Preaching Romans: Proclaiming God’s Saving Grace, 120)

Wilhelm Wuellner (1927-2004) endorses:

That the postscript is in itself well composed, and that it can be shown to be fully integrated with the rest of the letter, is as applicable to Romans as it is to Galatians. The very mention of the amanuensis Tertius in Romans 16:22 points to the fact that the “letter itself assumes more and more the character of an official document and less the character of a ‘private letter,” as Hans Dieter Betz [b. 1931] puts it. (Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940], “Paul’s Rhetoric of Argumentation in Romans: An Alternative to the Karl P. Donfried [b. 1940]-Robert J. Karris [b. 1938] Debate Over Romans”, The Romans Debate: Revised and Expanded Edition, 136)

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) lauds:

Why was Tertius used to record Romans? It may well be no other reason that he was an available secretary. It should be asked, however, is it merely coincidence that Romans is the longest letter of Paul, the letter that contains the strongest oral features, that can contains the highest frequency of oratorical rhetoric? Ever since Gustav Adolf Deissmann [1866-1937], scholars have noticed rhetorical parallels between Epictetus [55-135] and Paul. Epictetus’s works claimed to be the recorded speeches of Epictetus, taken down by Arrian [86-160]. The surface similarities between Epictetus and Romans may well be because both were accurate recordings of spoken preaching style. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

Some scholars have even speculated that Tertius composes an entire, albeit brief unit, of Romans’ postscript (Romans 16:21-23). Christopher Bryan (b. 1935) notes:

Harry Y. Gamble [b. 1941] raises the possibility that Paul wrote the whole of Romans 16:1-20ab in his own hand, with Tertius adding Romans 16:21-23: see The Textual History of the Letter to the Romans: A Study in Textual and Literary Criticism, Texts and Documents 42 (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1977), 93-95. (Bryan, A Preface to Romans: Notes on the Epistle in Its Literary and Cultural Setting, 14)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) agrees:

If Romans 16:17-20 are a final rousing call written in Paul’s own hand, as seems quite possible, Romans 16:21-23 are a final postscript, very likely penned by Tertius himself, before the letter was sealed and passed to the messenger. (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 908)

In relaying his greetings, Tertius makes his only appearance in the biblical record. Alexander Maclaren (1826-1910) describes:

He is never heard of before or since. For one brief moment he is visible, like a star of a low magnitude, shining out for a moment between two banks of darkness and then swallowed up...We do not know whether he was a resident in Corinth, where he wrote this epistle, or one of Paul’s travelling companions. Probably he was the former, as his name never recurs in any of Paul’s letters. One can understand the impulse which led him for one moment to come out of obscurity and to take up personal relations with those who had so long enjoyed his pen. He would fain float across the deep gulf of alienation a thread of love which looked like gossamer, but has proved to be stronger than centuries and revolutions. (Maclaren, Expositions of Holy Scripture: Romans and Corinthians, 395-96)

In Greek, the first person pronoun is implied in the verb ‘I write” but Tertius accentuates his involvement by adding an unnecessary additional “I”. Robert H. Mounce (b. 1921) infers:

James Denney [1856-1917] notes that the of the first person “is a striking indication of Paul’s courtesy.” Tertius was more than simply a scribe brought in for the occasion; he was a Christian brother free to add his personal greetings to those of others. (Mounce, Romans (New American Commentary), 281)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) applauds:

For whatever reason he sends his own greetings. It is a little human touch. That the apostle allows this to be done in connection with such a weighty letter as this sheds light on the relationship between the apostle and his helpers. Tertius calls attention to himself with the emphatic I and tells the reader that he wrote the letter. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 543)

Tertius is a common slave name. James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) introduces:

Tertius, a Roman name quite common among slaves and freedmen (Otto Michel [1903-1993]), is not otherwise known; but he may have been known in Rome. On the other hand, having been so much part of such an important letter he may have felt it appropriate to add his personal greetings, even though greetings in the first person were unusual (TDNT 1:501). (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 912-13)

The function he serves is further evidence that Tertius is likely a slave. The origin of the word amanuensis is the Latin servus a manu, which entails a “slave with secretarial duties”.

L.L. Welborn (b. 1953) shares:

The Latin name Tertius means “third,” and was often used as a name for slaves. The fact that Tertius’ profession was that of scribe also indicates slave status, since amanuenses were often slaves. Because Paul was a guest in the house of Gaius in Corinth when he wrote the Epistle to the Romans (Romans 16:23), we should probably infer that Tertius was a slave of Gaius. The self-assurance with which Tertius speaks in the greeting which he inserts into the letter itself, rather than attaching it as a note at then end, is eloquent testimony to the sense of equality “in Christ” enjoyed by this member of the Pauline community, as Robert Jewett [b. 1933] has observed. (Welborn, An End to Enmity: Paul and the "Wrongdoer" of Second Corinthians, 235-36)

Some have related Tertius to Quartus who is referenced in the very next verse of Romans’ salutations (Romans 16:23). F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) connects:

Since Quartus is Latin for ‘fourth’, and Tertius for ‘third’, would it be excessively far-fetched to think of him as Tertius’s brother, born next after him? (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 266)

John Murray (1898-1975) counters:

Quartus is called the brother [Romans 16:23]. It is more likely that this means brother in Christ rather than brother of Erastus [Romans 16:23] or even of Tertius. The fact that he is distinguished as “the brother”, when all the others are brethren in Christ, does not require the ordinary use of the term “brother” any more than does the addition of “in the Lord” in Romans 16:8 in the case of Ampliatus mean that others mentioned as beloved were not beloved in the Lord as well. All the others mentioned in these greetings (Romans 16:21-23) are not only mentioned by name but identified by some other addition. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 239)

The more intriguing connection is between amanuensis and author. It has been speculated that Tertius is placed at Paul’s disposal by his host, Gaius (Romans 16:23; F.F. Bruce [1910-1990], 14), or his benefactor, Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2, C. Marvin Pate [b. 1952], 321).

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) contemplates:

This was written while he [Paul] was the guest at the home of Gaius, whose house also served as the meeting place when ‘the whole church (in Corinth)’ came together (Romans 16:23). It was Gaius too, perhaps, or Phoebe, another of Paul’s benefactors (Romans 16:1-2), who was able to provide or finance the use of a skilled secretary or amanuensis, Tertius (Romans 16:22), something particularly desirable in such a major composition, and itself signalling the care with which Paul set about composing the letter. We need not imagine Paul spending day after day for the whole period on the letter. But neither is there any hint that he continued to work to maintain himself. More likely what detained him for so long in Corinth was the business of organizing the collection and the gathering to Corinth of the various delegates. But no doubt there would be long gaps when little more could be done and he could devote himself to the drafting and final composition of the letter. (Dunn, Beginning from Jerusalem (Christianity in the Making, Volume 2), 863)

Jerome Murphy-O’Connor (b. 1935) reflects:

The secretary to whom Paul dictated Romans makes his presence obvious in the note, “I, Tertius, the writer of this letter, greet you in the Lord” (Romans 16:22). This is the only case in which one of the apostle’s secretaries intervenes personally and identifies himself. That he felt free to do so says much for his relationship to Paul; no professional hired for the occasion would have taken the liberty. Tertius was more a friend and collaborator than an employee...A confidential secretary is almost an extension of his master’s personality. (Murphy-O’Connor, Paul the Letter-Writer: His World, His Options, His Skills, 6)

Tertius’s salute is authorized; he is not going into business for himself. Paul could just as easily have documented Tertius’ greeting but instead allows the amanuensis to deliver it himself. This has led some to presume that Tertius is known to the Roman Christians.

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) surmises:

In Paul’s letter to the Romans he concluded by greeting a large number of people by name, all in the Roman church. It has been questioned how Paul came to know so many when he had never visited the church. In Paul’s day, however, people traveled extensively, so it was not impossible. Yet there is another explanation. Paul used a secretary, Tertius (Romans 16:22), who apparently was not a member of his band. Tertius, a Roman name, was also a believer for he sent greetings “in the Lord.” Secretaries did not send greetings in a letter written for another, with the rare exception where the secretary was also known to the recipients. The few examples of a secretary squeezing in a greeting are only where the secretary was well known to the recipient. Most likely Tertius was a member of the Roman church. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 151)

E. Randolph Richards (b. 1958) decides:

Tertius was not mentioned in Romans 16:22 because he was the secretary (for Paul identified his secretary in no other letter), but because he was known to the Roman church. (Richards, Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition and Collection, 206)

Robert Jewett (b. 1933) accounts for Tertius’ interjection with the suggestion that he serves a dual role: he is not only Paul’s penman but was also the one who read the letter aloud to the church in Rome (Jewett, Romans (Hermeneia: A Critical & Historical Commentary on the Bible), 22-23, 41).

If Tertius is a known commodity in Rome, his personal greetings are not only a courtesy but also strategic. Paul is networking, making connections with a congregation he does not know firsthand. Tertius’ greeting displays Paul’s benevolent nature to the Roman church.

Paul’s use of a scribe not only adds a layer of complexity to Romans’ construction but also provides additional authentication of the veracity of its content. This makes Tertius a witness testifying to the credibility of Paul’s claims.

Whatever the reason for his cameo appearance, this marks Tertius’ only mention in the New Testament (Romans 16:22). It leaves the reader wondering as to his fate. Some ancients connected him to Silvanus (I Peter 5:12). Church tradition numbers Tertius among the Seventy Disciples (Luke 10:1), presents him as the apostle Sosipater’s successor as the bishop of Iconium and celebrates him as a martyr. The Catholic Church celebrates St. Tertius days on October 30 and November 10.

Though it is perhaps natural to downplay Tertius’ role to elevate Paul, penning perhaps the most influential letter of all-time is quite the accomplishment. Craig Gross (b. 1975) and J.R. Mahon exclaim:

Tertius wrote Romans! Read it. If we rely on history, Tertius is a hand that held a pen, nothing more. The only problem? God saw fit to mention him by name in the context of one of the most powerful books in the New Testament. To excuse this divine act is to ignore Tertius’s talent, which brought the book of Romans to life for you and me. (Gross and Mahon, Starving Jesus: Off the Pew, Into the World, 82)

Tertius is like many other Christians who do invaluable, often thankless work behind the scenes. Paul graciously provides him a moment in the spotlight.

How did Paul work the exorbitant cost of Romans into his budget? What literature is worthy of making an investment? Why does Paul allow Tertius to convey his personal greetings? Can networking be a Christian practice? What would you have said if you were Tertius? What is the modern equivalent to the ancient amanuensis? How much leeway do you think that Paul gave Tertius? If Tertius was more involved in Romans’ composition, would it make the text less inspired? Is Paul God’s amanuensis? When have you taken great care in writing something? Who do you trust to edit your words? Who do you know who does underappreciated work in a church?

Tertius intrudes into the text to “greet” (ESV, HCSB, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NRSV, RSV), “send greetings” (CEV, MSG, NLT) or “salute” (ASV, KJV) the Roman Christians “in the Lord” (Romans 16:22).

The Greek text exhibits some ambiguity in connection to the prepositional phrase. John Piper (b. 1946) explains:

In Romans 16:22, the Greek word order goes like this: “I greet you, I Tertius, the one who wrote the letter in the Lord.” There is nothing in Greek that says “in the Lord” has to modify “I greet you,” as virtually all the translations have it: “I . . . greet you in the Lord.” It can just as easily modify “wrote”—“I Tertius, the one who wrote this letter in the Lord.” (Piper, ““Thank God for an Inspired Bible”, November 19, 2006)

Leon Morris (1914-2006) explicates:

There is a teasing little problem with in the Lord, which is usually taken with greet but which in the Greek follows immediately on “wrote the letter”. It is also true that in this chapter “in Christ” or “in the Lord” occurs repeatedly in verses which convey greetings (Romans 16:3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12a, 12b, 13), and not once is it connected with the greeting. It may well be that Tertius meant that he wrote the letter “in the Lord”, which, of course, immediately raises the question of what it means to “write in the Lord”. If this is the way to take it, we should see the writing of the letter, not as a mechanical project, but as something Tertius undertook as a piece of service to his Lord. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 543)

Both positions are likely true. Tertius would probably not object to crediting God with his penmanship nor bestowing Christian greetings.

Roberto Assagioli (1888-1974), the founder of psychosynthesis, developed a well-known parable about three stone cutters building a cathedral during the fourteenth century. When the first artisan is asked what he is doing, he bitterly replies that he is carving stones into blocks and laments that this chore will forever be his fate. When asked the same question, the second stone cutter has a different response, replying that he is supporting his family. When the third craftsman is interviewed, he joyously discusses the privilege of participating in the construction of a great cathedral that will stand as a holy beacon for a millennium. The three workmen are all performing the same task but hold very different perspectives concerning their occupation. It is their rationales that made all of the difference.

For Tertius the laborious burden of penning Romans is nothing less than an act of service, a gift to God. In an age when literacy was not common, he utilizes his specialized skill for Christ. As such, it is a labor of love.

Everett F. Harrison (1902-1999) and Donald A. Hagner (b. 1936) suspect:

We may be sure he [Paul] was careful to use believers rather than public secretaries who would do their work without any spiritual concern or special care. We also may be sure that people such as Tertius would undertake the task as work for the Lord, so that it would cost the apostle nothing. (Tremper Longman III [b. 1952] and David E. Garland [b. 1947], Romans – Galatians (The Expositor’s Bible Commentary), 233)

To Paul’s credit, he allows Tertius to utilize his talents. In doing so, the apostle is also practicing what preaches. David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) recalls:

Romans 16:21-23 remind us that even the apostle did not minister alone. He is aided by co-workers and relatives. He depends on the hospitality of Gaius and others [Romans 16:23]. He dictates his letter to Tertius [Romans 16:22]. Paul insists in Romans 12 that the church is a body whose different members have different responsibilities [Romans 12:3-8]. His own ministry is fulfilled in cooperation with many others. (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 143)

What are the advantages and disadvantages to employing Christians in the church in less spiritual roles? What projects are you undertaking in which you would you be well served to collaborate with fellow believers? How can you use your skills to serve? What do you do “in the Lord”?

“Thoughts disentangle themselves when they pass through the lips and the fingertips.” - Dawson Trotman (1906-1956), founder of The Navigators

Trusting Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2)

In what city was Phoebe a deaconess? Cenchreae (Romans 16:1)

Paul’s longest and most influential letter is the Epistle to the Romans. After communicating doctrine throughout the book’s first fifteen chapters (Romans 1:1-15:21), the letter concludes with customary salutations (Romans 16:1-27), equivalent to modern “shout outs”. This section incorporates 26 names representing a hodgepodge of people; Paul greets Jews and Gentiles, men and women alike. The chapter is so thorough that some have posited that it constitutes a self contained letter.

The most extensive salutation is devoted to endorsing Paul’s associate, Phoebe (Romans 16:1-2).

I commend to you our sister Phoebe, who is a servant of the church which is at Cenchrea; that you receive her in the Lord in a manner worthy of the saints, and that you help her in whatever matter she may have need of you; for she herself has also been a helper of many, and of myself as well. (Romans 16:1-2 NASB)

This passage is a letter of recommendation. Letters of introduction, known as sustatikai epistolai, were common in the ancient world (Acts 18:27; II Corinthians 3:1, 4:2, 5:12, 10:12; III John 1:9-10; I Maccabees 12:43; II Maccabees 9:25). These affirmations were important as the ancient traveler had to rely on networking in an age where communication was far scarcer and slower than in modern times.

Paul’s endorsement features standard form and content. Efrain Agosto (b. 1955) outlines:

Romans 16:1-2 includes some typical terms from Greco-Roman commendation letter-writing: συνίστημι, synistēmi (“commend”); προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe (“receive”); and παραστητε, parastēte (“assist” or “help”). Paul clearly states Phoebe’s credentials for commendation. She is a “sister,” a διάκονος, diakonos (“servant”), someone “worthy [ἀξίως, axiōs]of the saints,” and a προστάτις, prostatis. Except for the final term, Paul uses language found elsewhere in his letters, including commendation passages (cf. “service [διάκονια, diakonia] to the saints,” I Corinthians 16:15; “receive [προσδέχεσθε, prosdechesthe] him in the Lord,” Philippians 2:29). Finally, the action Paul requests from the Roman churches on Phoebe’s behalf is ambiguous. She is to be welcomed and assisted in whatever she needs. Such ambiguity is also typical of Greco-Roman commendation letters. (J. Paul Sampley [b. 1935], Paul in the Greco-Roman World: A Handbook, 123)

Paul does add weight to the common formula. Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) explains:

Paul’s commendation has a fourfold structure, in which he (1) identifies Phoebe by name; (2) mentions her credentials (a sister and deacon); (3) expresses a desired action from his readers (to receive her and to assist her); and (4) adds further credentials (calling her a benefactor of many and of Paul). Typically the first three items (identification, credentials, and desired action) appear in Pauline commendations. But in this case Paul adds an additional statement concerning Phoebe’s credentials. That is especially appropriate in this instance, since it sets up reciprocity. Paul asks that the Roman Christians receive Phoebe and assist her, for she has assisted others, including Paul himself. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 569)

Despite employing routine form and content, this unit and Phoebe herself have come under much scrutiny. The mystery surrounding Phoebe’s role has perplexed scholars attempting to reconstruct the flow chart of the early church. The enigma surrounding Phoebe has projected her into the debate regarding what ministerial activities she and other women are authorized to perform and has made her a highly controversial figure.

Though her name was common, Phoebe is mentioned only here in the New Testament (Romans 16:1-2). She is otherwise unknown. Her name means “bright” or “radiant”. It is the feminine form of Phoebus (φοἰβος), a famous epithet given to the god Apollo, “the Bright One”.

Slaves were routinely issued pagan names because figures from Greek mythology commonly substituted for the godfather during the naming process. When slaves became Christian they typically retained their pagan names if not their meaning. In view of this practice, some have speculated that Phoebe is a freedwoman.

Joseph A. Fitzmyer (b. 1920) theorizes:

The name Phoibē suggests her pagan background and probably connotes her status as a freed slave (so Heinrich Schlier [1900-1978], Römberbrief 441). The name was of mythological origin, that of a Titaness, daughter of Heaven and Earth (Hesiod, Theognis 136), wife of Coeus, and mother of Leto, grandmother of Apollo (Phoebus) and Artemis. The name means “shining, beaming, bright”; it was commonly used in the Greco-Roman world of the time. (Fitzmyer, Romans (The Anchor Bible), 729)

At the very least, it can be inferred that Phoebe is a Gentile as a Jewess would not have used such a name.

Phoebe is referenced with no mention of a father, husband or sons. Paul ignores all other biographical data and emphasizes her role in the church at Cenchreae. Cenchreae was a port situated on the Saronic Gulf, on the southeastern side of the narrow isthmus that connects southern Achaia to northern Achaia (and Macedonia further north). This locale would provide plenty of opportunity for the practical expression of Christian compassion (Romans 16:2).

Located eight miles from the city, Cenchreae served as Corinth’s eastern port to the Aegean Sea; one of two Corinthian ports. The reference to Cenchreae supports the common belief that Romans is written at Corinth (Romans 16:1). Paul spent eighteen months in Corinth (Acts 18:1-18) and the apostle sailed from Cenchreae in traveling from Corinth to Ephesus (Acts 18:18). In all likelihood, Phoebe was well known in Corinth.

In his glowing recommendation, Paul asserts that Phoebe is a sister, a deacon/servant, a saint, and a helper (Romans 16:1-2). In describing her as “our sister” and “saint”, Paul informs that she is a fellow believer and appeals to their common bond: Christ. Early Christians commonly referred to women believers with the familial appellation “sister” (I Corinthians 7:15, 9:5; Philemon 1:2; James 2:15; Ignatius Epistle to Polycarp 5.1; II Clement 12:5, 19:1, 20:2; The Shepherd of Hermas Vision 2.2.3, 2.3.1).

Paul evokes Phoebe’s status as a diakonos, a shadowy term with a broad range of meaning. Paul uses the same designation earlier in the letter (Romans 13:4 twice). The intent of this term has sparked much discussion. The question is whether the word indicates a general use (“servant”) or the ecclesiastical office of “deacon”, albeit an undeveloped form of this position.

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) assesses:

Paul uses the language of “service” (diakonia) in a variety of ways, as we might expect for a term so broad in its possible applications. In this letter, he uses it for his own ministry of preaching (Romans 11:13), his collection for the saints in Jerusalem (Romans 15:31) and for the work of Phoebe (Romans 16:1). A separate ministry of “deacons” appears in I Timothy 3:8, 12, but the “gift of service” may extend beyond that office (see I Corinthians 16:15; II Corinthians 8:4, 9:1; Ephesians 4:12). (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 193)

Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) adds:

He uses the same word he employs regularly to describe both himself and others as servants of God (II Corinthians 6:4), servants of the gospel (Ephesians 3:7; Colossians 1:23), servants of a new covenant (II Corinthians 3:6), servants in the Lord (Ephesians 6:21; Colossians 4:7), and servants of Christ (Philippians 1:1; Colossians 1:7; I Timothy 4:6). Only here in Romans 16:1 do we find anyone described as ‘a deacon of the church’, and this appears to be the earliest reference to such a ministry in ‘the church’. In Colossians 1:24-25 Paul does speak of the body of Christ, the church, of which he became a ‘servant’. All this suggests that the apostle recognized Phoebe as a servant of the church similar to his other colleagues and himself. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553)

The diverging opinions on the term’s purpose are evidenced by the variance among translations. Many opt for the general meaning, “servant” (ASV, CEB, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NKJV) as it used of servants drawing water (John 2:5, 9). Others go with the more formal title, “deacon” (NIV, NLT, NRSV) or “deaconess” (AMP, RSV). Still other translations utilize broader designations like “leader” (CEV) or “key representative” (MSG).

Deacon was one of the first offices to emerge in the early Christian movement (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8; Ignatius Epistle to the Ephesians 2.1, Epistle to the Magnesians 6.1). Today, it is a loaded term as “Deacon” means different things depending on the denomination or person speaking. Paul’s casual use of the word shows that it has not yet developed the baggage it carries today.

Translations often demonstrate their bias in their rendering of Romans 16:1. Sojung Yoon exposes:

Διάκονος appears a total of nineteen times in the Pauline and Deutero-Pauline letters. Sixteen times the KJV and ASV translate it as “minister,” while in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8,12 they translate it as “deacon.” and in Romans 16:1 as “servant.” Therefore one can say that the KJV and ASV imply that διάκονος refers to an official position within the church, since normally they translate it as “minister.” Only in Romans 16:1 do they translate διάκονος as “servant,” thus implying that Phoebe was not a leader in the church but a devoted lay person. The RSV translates διάκονος as “deaconness,” also differentiating Phoebe’s leadership from other male διάκονοι by making the masculine noun διάκονος feminine, a distinction not found in the Greek. (Holly E. Hearon[b. 1956], Distant Voices Drawing Near: Essays in Honor of Antoinette Clark Wire [b. 1934], 20)

Alvin J. Schmidt (b. 1932) chronicles:

Phoebe...was a diakonos, not “deaconess” as male theologians have mistranslated this work in many Bible versions. (The feminine form of diakonos) did not appear in literature until about 300 years after St. Paul addresses Phoebe in the Epistle to the Romans. The Apostolic Constitutions [a Syriac document of about A.D. 375] is the first known Christian writing to use the feminine form of diakonos). The word diakonos appears many times in the New Testament. In the King James Version (KJV) it is most often translated as “minister” when it speaks about a man holding this office. Three times the KJV translates the word as “deacon.” Only in one place does it use the word servant, and that occurs in Romans 16:1, where Phoebe in mentioned...Evidently, beginning with the KJV, English translators were overwhelmed by sexist values because the Miles Coverdale [1488-1569] edition, about seventy years earlier (1535), still translated diakonos in Romans 16:1 as “minister.” Closer to our time, the Revised Standard Version renders diakonos as “deaconess.” while the New International Version, like the KJV, has “servant.” (Schmidt, Veiled and Silenced: How Culture Shaped Sexist Theology, 180)

As Yoon and Schmidt allude, “deaconess” is an especially incorrect translation (AMP, RSV, J.B. Phillips [1906-1982]). Kristina LaCelle-Peterson (b. 1960) corrects:

The fact that Paul used the masculine nominative form of the word suggests that she held a particular recognized role of “deacon” or “servant” that carried the same responsibilities as when a man held that role. If Paul is not referring to a specific office that Phoebe held, we have to assume that he simply confused the endings, but that would be like using the wrong gendered pronoun (as in, Phoebe had his mission to fulfill). No educated person would do that, particularly not someone as articulate as Paul. When an English translation renders the word as deaconess it leaves the inaccurate impression that Paul is drawing a distinction of roles based on gender. (Fortunately this is less common in more recent translations.) (LaCelle-Peterson, Liberating Tradition: Women’s Identity and Vocation in Christian Perspective, 62)

F.F. Bruce (1910-1990) concurs:

In a church context the word should be rendered ‘deacon’, whether masculine or feminine. That the duties of a deacon could be performed by either men or women is suggested by I Timothy 3:11, where ‘the women’ are to be understood as ‘deacons’ (like the men of I Timothy 3:3-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 252)

Scholarly opinion is as divided as the translators regarding the meaning of diakonos. Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) surveys:

She is a “deacon”...of the church in Cenchrea, which could refer to a general service to the church (NIV; NASB; Kazimierz Romaniuk [b. 1927] 1990:132-34) or an official office in the church (NRSV; REB; NLTL; C.E.B. Cranfield [b. 1915] 1979; James D.G. Dunn [b. 1939] 1988b; Leon Morris [1914-2006] 1988; Douglas J. Moo [b. 1950] 1996; Thomas R. Schreiner [b. 1954] 1998). Most accept the latter, for the term referred to that office (Philippians 1:1; I Timothy 3:8, 12), and women at times did hold the office (I Timothy 3:11). Moreover, this is the masculine noun (diakonos), and if it did indicate a general “serving,” one would have expected the feminine diakonia. In fact some have concluded that she was the pastor of the congregation (Elizabeth Schüssler-Fiorenza [b. 1938] 1986:425-26; Robert Jewett 1988:148-50), but there is too little evidence that this term was used of the position of pastor over “overseer” in the first century. Most likely she held the office of “deacon,” but there is little evidence regarding what this office entailed...Most likely deacons dealt with the practical needs of the church, for example, caring for the needy...and financial oversight. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 402-3)

The debate is not new, it has persisted for centuries. Colin G. Kruse (b. 1938) documents:

Some early church fathers believed that she fulfilled an official role. Origen [184-253] said: ‘This passage teaches that there were women ordained in the church’s ministry by the apostle’s authority...Not only that — they ought to be ordained into the ministry, because they helped in many ways and by their good services deserved the praise even of the apostle’. Pelagius [354-420] said, ‘Even today, women deaconesses in the East are known to minister to their own sex in baptism or even in the ministry of the Word, for we find that women taught privately, e.g., Priscilla, whose husband was called Aquila.’ Some recent commentators agree. (Kruse, Paul’s Letter to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 553-54)

The majority of scholars assert that Phoebe served in some official capacity. Many have concluded that since Paul’s qualification “of the church” (Romans 16:1) connects diakonos to a specific church it also indicates a specific office. This is the first time “church” is used in Romans and in this epistle it always speaks of a local, not the universal, church (Romans 16:1, 4, 5, 16, 23).

C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) comments:

It is perhaps just conceivable that the word διάκονος should be understood here as a quite general reference to her service of the congregation; but it is very much more natural, particularly in view of the way in which Paul formulates his thought...to understand it as referring to a definite office. We regard it as virtually certain that Phoebe is being described as ‘a (or possibly ‘the’) deacon’ of the church in question, and that this occurrence of διάκονος is to be classified with its occurrences in Philippians 1:1 and I Timothy 3:8, 12. And, while it is true that the functions of a διάκονος are not expressly indicated in Philippians 1:1 or in I Timothy 3:8ff or in the present two verses, there is nothing in any of these passages in any way inconsonant with the inherent probability that a specialized use of διάκονος in New Testament times will have corresponded to the clearly attested specialized use of διακονειν and διακονία with reference to the practical service of the needy, and there are some features, for example, what is said about Phoebe in Romans 16:2b, which would seem to afford it some support. (Cranfield, Romans 9-16 (International Critical Commentary), 781)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) argues that Phoebe is best described as a “minister”:

Phoebe...is designated as a diakonos. This Greek word often means “minister,” even as Paul applies it to himself (see, for instance, I Corinthians 3:5; II Corinthians 3:6, 6:4, 11:23). Clearly Phoebe has a role of some importance in the early community, and “minister” is probably a better translation than “deacon.” Sometimes a “minister,” or diakonos, is a person who carries out a commission from another. (In II Corinthians 11:15, Paul refers to false apostles as “deacons” or “emissaries” from Satan.) Phoebe may be Christ’s emissary in the church at Cenchreae, as Paul has been Christ’s emissary in Corinth. In Philippians 1:1, “deacons” are apparently local church leaders, though they may not yet be officers in any institutionalized way. Older translations sometimes called Phoebe a “deaconess,” but the Greek word gives not reason to think that she has a leadership role reserved for women. She is a “deacon” or “minister.” (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 140)

James D.G. Dunn (b. 1939) states unequivocally, “Phoebe is the first recorded ‘deacon’ in the history of Christianity (Dunn, Romans 9-16 (Word Biblical Commentary), 887).”

If Dunn is correct, there is still great discussion as to what a deacon’s duties entailed. Women holding the office were known to conduct baptisms for women and to preach. The degree to which the term designated an actual office at the time Paul wrote Romans is also unclear.

It is for this reason that many, even those who object to women in ministry, have no problem conceding that Phoebe served as a deacon. Wayne Grudem (b. 1948) explains:

It does not matter very much...whether Phoebe is called a faithful “servant” or a “deacon” in Romans 16:1. In neither case does this passage show that she had any teaching or governing authority in the church. Teaching and governing the whole church are functions given to “elders,” not deacons, in the New Testament (see I Timothy 3:2, 5, 5:17; Titus 1:9; also Acts 20:17, 28). (Grudem, Countering the Claims of Evangelical Feminism: Biblical Responses to the Key Questions, 154-55)

The word translated “helper” is as contested as “deacon” (Romans 16:2 NASB). It is prostatis, which literally means someone who stands in front of something else. The word is translated variously “been helpful” (NLT), “helper” (ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV), “she’s helped” (MSG), “succourer” (KJV), “benefactor” (HCSB, NIV, NRSV), “patron” (ESV) and “respected leader” (CEV). The terminology represents distinguished service. The word connotes great honor. The Roman emperor even boasted that he was the state’s supreme benefactor.

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) defines:

The Greek word prostatis is found only here in biblical Greek. It comes from a verb that means (1) “care for, give aid to,” or (2) “direct, preside over.” If Paul is applying to the noun this first meaning of the verb, he would simply be characterizing Phoebe as a “helper” of many Christians...But if we use the meaning of the cognate verb to define prostatis, Pauline usage would favor a different rendering. For Paul seems to use the verb only to mean “direct,” “preside over.” Noting this, some recent scholars have argued that Paul intends to characterize Phoebe as a “leader” of the church. But it is difficult to conceive how Phoebe would have had the opportunity to be a “leader” of Paul. Moreover, the fact, that Paul designates her as the leader “of many” rather than as the leader of “the church” (contrast Romans 16:1) suggests that the term here does not denote an official or even semi-official, position in the local church. The best alternative, then, is to give to prostatis the meaning that if often has in secular Greek: “patron,” “benefactor.” A “patron was one who came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities. Cenchreae’s status as a busy seaport would make it imperative that a Christian in its church take up this ministry on behalf of visiting Christians. Phoebe, then, was probably a woman of high social standing and some wealth, who put her status, resources, and time at the services of traveling Christians, like Paul, who needed help and support. (Moo, The Epistle to the Romans (New International Commentary on the New Testament), 915-16)

Leander E. Keck (b. 1928) concurs:

The word here surely means more than “a good friend” (REB), for it appears to be the Greek equivalent of the Latin patrona, one who “came to the aid of others, especially foreigners, by providing housing and financial aid and by representing their interests before local authorities”...Acts 16:14-15, 40 suggests that Lydia served as Paul’s patron in Philippi. Phoebe, then, was a “benefactor,” from whose generosity Paul too benefitted (Gaius was another; Romans 16:23). Like Lydia and Gaius, Phoebe had financial resources; what sort of business took her to Rome is not indicated. By making her role in the church a reason to welcome her in Rome, Paul, in effect, says, “She deserves it.” Having assisted travelers like Paul, she would now be given assistance herself. (Keck, Romans (Abingdon New Testament Commentaries), 369-370)

Some have seen Paul’s use of prostatis as further evidence of a position of leadership. The word is derived from the same root (proistemi) as the word Paul uses for “leads” in Romans 12:8.

Alan F. Johnson (b. 1933) glosses:

The word “help” (Greek prostatis) in Romans 16:2 is found only here in the New Testament and its sense is not entirely clear...The word is found eight times in the Greek Old Testament (LXX) and thirteen times in the first-century Jewish writer Josephus [37-100], in each of the twenty-one cases with reference to a person who holds a publicly recognized service-oriented leadership role, the word may be stronger than simply a benefactor...Its choice here by Paul seems to clearly affirm that Phoebe has not only some social position, wealth, and independence, but that she is recognized as an official leader in the church as well. (Johnson, Romans (Everyman’s Bible Commentary), 259-60)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) counters:

That Phoebe is being called a leader here is improbable for three reasons. (1) It is highly improbable that Paul would say that Phoebe held a position of authority over him. He says that about no one except Christ, not even the Jerusalem apostles (Galatians 1:6-7, 11), so confident is he of his high authority as an apostle (cf. I Corinthians 14:37-38; Galatians 1:8-9; II Thessalonians 3:14). (2) There seems to be a play on words between the word prostatis and the previous verb paristēmi, in Romans 16:2. Paul says to help (paristēmi) Phoebe because she has been a help ( prostatis) to many, including to Paul himself. It fits the context better understand Paul as saying “help Phoebe because she has been such a help to others and to me.” (3) Although the related masculine noun prostatēs can mean “leader,” the actual feminine noun (prostatis) does not take the meaning “leader” but is defined as “protectress, patroness, helper.” (John Piper [b. 1946] and Wayne Grudem [b. 1948], Recovering Biblical Manhood & Womanhood: A Response to Evangelical Feminism, 219-220)

Whatever her official position, Paul’s argument is clear: Phoebe has helped others and deserves any assistance the Roman Christians can provide. She has good kharma. In making this assertion, Paul is diplomatically reiterating his previous charge to contribute “to the needs of the saints, practicing hospitality (Romans 12:13 NASB).”

It is uncertain what assistance Phoebe might need. Rudolf Schumacher (b. 1884) was the first to espouse that the language (pragma, Romans 16:2) connotes a lawsuit (Schumacher, Die beiden letzten kapitel des Römerbriefes, 49). While others have adopted this stance, it is far from certain.

Regardless of her gender, position and whatever needs she might have, it can be certain that Phoebe is special and a leading figure in the church at Cenchraea.

Which part of the letter was most important to the Romans, the teaching or the greetings? Is the recommendation of Phoebe an afterthought? When have you received a letter of recommendation? Who vouches for you? Who have you known that fits Phoebe’s description? Who are the leading women in your church? Can women serve as deacons there? In your opinion, what functions should a woman not perform? Is there anything that God cannot accomplish through a woman?

Though it is not stated in the letter, the prevailing opinion is that Phoebe is the bearer of the Epistle to the Romans. (To acknowledge her as courier in the letter might be considered stating the obvious.) The Roman Empire had no public postal system and many believe that she is delivering the correspondence while conducting “whatever business” she is tending to (Romans 16:2). Subscriptions in some ancient manuscripts even indicate as much (337, 424, 1881, Majority text). This theory is also attested in early Christian documents, e.g. Pseudo-Constantius, The Holy Letter of St. Paul to the Romans (on 16:1); dated 405.

Margaret Y. MacDonald (b. 1961) notes:

It was quite common for ancient letters to include praise of their bearers, and sometimes letters were written for the sole purpose of commending their bearers. Paul’s instructions concerning Phoebe in Romans 16:1-2 appear to reflect this conventional practice (cf. I Corinthians 16:15-18). It is impossible to be certain whether this commendation is made only to guarantee that the Romans offer her the best kind of hospitality or whether Paul intends that she might play a specific role in the life of the Roman community. (Ross Shepard Kraemer [b. 1948] and Mary Rose D’Angelo, Women & Christian Origins, 207-208)

Phoebe is accustomed to serving and her toting Paul’s epistle fits her character. A courier would have need of food and lodging and thus her being the bearer of the letter would account for Paul’s instruction to the Romans (Romans 16:2). At the very least, Phoebe and the letter arrive at roughly the same time.

As courier, Phoebe would be expected to interpret the letter and supplement content, filling in the gaps. This would make her the first commentator of Paul’s Epistle to the Romans.

Robert J. Karris (b. 1938) describes:

It is highly likely that Phoebe not only carried Paul’s letter to the Romans to the house churches but also read it to them. You see, Phoebe was likely among the five percent of the population who could read. Further, in reading Romans, she surely had to know what it was about. Ancient letters (and manuscripts) did not have spacing, chapters and verses, and subheadings. I give a simple example. Suppose I put a recent headline in capital letters without spacing: FLORIDAKEYDEERREBOUNDS. Without too much effort you read: Florida key deer rebounds. But is “key” an adjective meaning “principal”? Does “key” refer to the Florida Keys? Is “key deer” a technical name for a species of deer? The reader would have to know answers to these questions in order to read this simple sentence out loud meaningfully. Just think of the skill Phoebe must have if she is to navigate successfully through all the elements of scholastic diatribe that Paul used in composing his letter! (Karris, Galatians and Romans (New Collegeville Bible Commentary: New Testament), 94)

Phoebe is Paul’s representative to the leaders of the house churches. In a very real sense, Paul and Phoebe endorse one another. In authenticating her, Paul gives his own work credibility. Paul trusts Phoebe implicitly. Some have speculated that he is sending her to set up operations in Rome and to financially support a mission to Spain (Romans 15:24, 28). More importantly, Paul entrusts Phoebe with his opus, his most complete work. Its survival is evidence of her success.

Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) praises:

Brief though it is, Paul’s commendation of Phoebe is an important indication of the leadership roles exercised by women in the early Christian communities. It is also not without significance that the document many have judged to be the most influential in Christian history (Paul’s letter to Rome) was entrusted to this woman on the long and risky journey to its destination, its ultimate reception very much dependent upon the impression she herself was to make on the recipient community. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina), 448)

Phoebe is entrusted with nothing less than the gospel. As are we.

Does it matter whether or not Phoebe held an official office? What does having a formal title mean to you? What is the bigger responsibility, being a deacon or bearing the letter to the Romans? What have you been entrusted with?

“This is a staggering fact. God has entrusted to people like us, redeemed sinners, the responsibility of carrying out the divine purpose in history.” - George Eldon Ladd (1911-1982), The Gospel of the Kingdom: Scriptural Studies in the Kingdom of God, p. 134