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

The Payoff (Romans 6:23)

For the wages of sin is _____.” Death (Romans 6:23)

In Romans 6, Paul addresses an obvious distortion of the Christian message: “Shall we sin because we are not under the law but under grace?” (Romans 6:15 NASB; cf. Romans 6:1). The apostle vehemently answers in the negative asserting that the assurance of grace does not promote sin (Romans 6:15-23). The chapter concludes with a triumphant summation shrouded by a solemn warning (Romans 6:23).

For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 6:23 NASB)

Romans 6:23 restates the chapter’s central theme and returns to its imagery of bondage (Romans 6:6, 12, 16-17). Sin, personified as a wicked slave master, is naturally juxtaposed with God. Paul’s supposition is that all are slaves, either to sin or God. Each human faces a binary choice of master. Paul evaluates that decision by relaying the inevitable consequences of each option: death and eternal life (Romans 6:23).

Justifiably Romans 6:23 has become a well known verse in Christian circles as it cuts to the core of the gospel. It is a featured stop on the famed “Romans Road to Salvation” (Romans 3:23, 6:23, 5:8, 10:13, 10:9-10).

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) applauds:

With the possible exception of John 3:16, no other text in Scripture better sums up all sixty-six books and thirty-one thousand verses of the Bible. This is the ultimate Reader’s Digest version of God’s Word. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 57)

Romans 6:23 draws upon two analogies. C.E.B. Cranfield (b. 1915) relays:

Sin is...personified, and is here represented as either a general who pays wages to his soldiers or – and this suits better the prominence of the idea of slavery in the preceding verses – as a slave-owner who pays his slaves an allowance or pocket-money (among the Romans this was normal practice.) The wage which the slave of sin has to expect is death. God, by contrast, does not pay wages, since no man can put Him in his debt; but the free gift which He gives is nothing less than eternal life. (Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 146)

In contrasting the inevitable outcomes of serving Sin and following God, Paul states that the wages of sin is death. The “wages of sin” deliberately builds upon a previous passage in Romans: “his wage is not credited as a favor” (Romans 4:4 NASB). Due in part to the verse’s popularity, the Greek opsonian is consistently translated “wages” (ASV, ESV, HCSB, KJV, NASB, NIV, NKJV, NLT, NRSV, RSV). The Message paraphrases the thought as Death being Sin’s “pension”.

Opsonian is derived from two words meaning “cooked food” and “to buy”. It is used only four times in the New Testament (Luke 3:14; Romans 6:23; I Corinthians 9:7; II Corinthians 11:8). The term originally referred to ration money paid to soldiers; all three times the word is used in the Septuagint refer to a soldier’s salary (I Esdras 4:56; I Maccabees 3:28, 14:32). Though the word eventually took the broader meaning of payment for labor, its most frequent use remained the pay of soldiers. It connotes a pittance, a soldier’s wage.

James R. Edwards (b. 1945) examines:

The imagery of fruit...is here abandoned for the military imagery of Romans 6:13. Sin and God are depicted as warlords, the one paying the wages of death, the other offering release and freedom of life. There is a telling contrast between the wages of sin and the gift of God. Hans Heidland [1912-1992] notes that opsōnia, “wages,” were subsistence payments to soldiers. Thus, in the present context, sin promises to pay subsistence wages, to provide for our needs, but that is an illusion, for in reality it pays death. Again, opsōnia were not a flat sum but installments paid over the duration of a soldier’s service. If Paul is true to the metaphor, the death he refers to would not be death as a “lump sum,” i.e., physical death, but the shadow and consequences of death already in life. Most importantly, wages and gift are two entirely different things. In Heidland’s words, “Man has rights only in relation to sin, and these rights become his judgment” (TDNT, volume 5, p.592). (Edwards, Romans (New International Biblical Commentary), 175-76)

The wages Sin pays are valued at literally less than nothing, a negative on one’s ledger. And that wage is a flat rate. No matter how hard or little one works for Sin, the result is the same: death. Most, however, work diligently towards this end. In a tragic irony, Sin’s servants slave for death.

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) sees a modern parallel:

Have you noticed how hard the tobacco industry has to work as its death-dealing subservience? The industry employs highly paid lobbyists and pseudo-scientists. It pays for ads enticing younger and younger people to take up the habit their elders are beginning to let go. It establishes international networks to sell abroad the stuff that is not selling as well at home as it used to. The enterprise is frantic. Corporations deal biological death to stave off economic death. Every paycheck has a price tag. Sin will do that to you, wear you out in its service and then send you out to die...Paul says that if you go chasing sin you will get paid in the end. You will get what you work for, and what you are working for is death. (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion), 65-66)

The Death in question is not limited to the cessation of one’s physical life; it also evokes a spiritual death. Millard J. Erickson (b. 1932) diagnoses:

Spiritual death is both connected with physical death and distinguished from it. It is the separation of the entire person from God...The essence of spiritual death can be seen in the case of Adam and Eve. “For when you eat of it [the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil] you will surely die” [Genesis 2:17] did not mean that they wold experience immediate physical death. It did mean...their potential mortality would become actual. It also meant spiritual death, separation between them and God...Sin results in alienation from God. This is the wages of sin of which Paul speaks in Romans 6:23. (Erickson, Christian Theology, 631)

Even those who are not oblivious to the oblivion resulting from sin often choose it. Paul J. Achtemeier (b. 1927) explains this calamity:

Sin uses the law to make us think we do not need to rely on mercy but can, somehow, make it under our own power, as it were. It lets us think we can, somehow, establish our worth in such a way that we do not need God’s mercy. We want that “boast before God” that not even Abraham could muster [Romans 4:1-2]. We want our salvation as wages, not mercy. In short, we want to do what only God can do: Furnish the grounds for our being declared righteous and hence acceptable to God. (Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching and Preaching), 79-80)

As such Sin not only results in death but carries the additional byproduct of a compulsion to choose it and with it Death.

Sin is intentionally juxtaposed with God; what is the opposite of God? Do you perceive yourself as a slave (to either sin or God)? What is the connection between Sin and Death? Do you consider the consequences of a decision before you act? What is the alternative to serving Sin?

Unlike Sin, God does not pay wages, but instead offers a gift, charisma. This word is universally translated “gift” (CEV, HCSB, KJV, NIV, MSG, NKJV) but some translations accent the term by rendering it as “free gift” (ASV, ESV, NASB, NLT, NRSV, RSV). God’s gift is the polar opposite of Death: Eternal life.

Eternal life is given as a gift because it cannot be earned. While the believer’s actions are consequential (Revelation 20:12-14) one cannot merit eternal life on the basis of her works (Romans 3:20, 27-28, 4:2-5, 14; Ephesians 2:8-9; II Timothy 1:9; Titus 3:5). The believer’s salvation is fully attributable to grace.

Brendan Byrne (b 1939) clarifies:

To clinch the matter in a final supportive comment (Romans 6:23) Paul ironically points to death as the “wages” (opsōnia) paid by the slave master “Sin.” On the positive side, there is no talk of “wages” at all. That might suggest some kind of reward for righteous behavior and, while Paul may not have been as nervous about this as many of his later interpreters (cf. II Corinthians 5:5; also I Corinthians 3:14-15), his theological tendency is always to preserve the initiative of God. Hence he reaches for one of his favorite words—charisma (cf. already Romans 5:15, 16). The ultimate concrete expression of grace for the faithful “slave” will be the “gracious gift” of “eternal life in Christ Jesus, our Lord.” (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina), 204)

Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) testifies:

Eternal life...is not something earned by the believer, even if he or she behaves in a holy manner, for holiness is obligatory, not optional, for the Christian. Eternal life is a grace gift. Even if Christian persons managed to live an entirely sanctified life, this would not oblige God to reward them with eternal life, for they will have done no more than what was required of them. Thus Paul does not see eternal life as some sort of quid pro quo for holy living in this lifetime. Salvation is indeed a matter of grace, received through faith, from start to finish. (Withertington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 174)

Paul presents the full trajectories of serving both Sin and God. As when shooting a bow and arrow, a small adjustment in aiming leads to a wide variance at the target, in this case from death to life.

John Murray (1898-1975) summarizes:

In the clause, “the wages of sin is death”, there are two thoughts: (1) that the death with which we are inflicted is no more and no less than what we have earned; (2) that death is the inevitable consequence of sin. Rectitude governs the payment of wages and we therefore receive exactly and inevitably what we owe. In the clause, “but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord” the governing idea is that of God’s free grace in contrast with the notion of remuneration, and the magnitude of this free grace is emphasized by the nature of the gift bestowed. The thought is not that the free grace of God issues in eternal life for us, though this is in itself true. But the precise thought is that the free gift consists in eternal life. When wages are in operation our lot is death, inescapably and in its ultimate expression. When the free gift of God is in operation our lot is life, eternal and indestructible. How totally alien to such contrasts is the importation of merit in any form or degree into the method of salvation. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans, 238)

Sin gives no gifts but instead pays and pays horribly at that. God, the giver of life, counters Sin’s offer of Death, dispensing far better than wages: the free gift of eternal life. Despite having death as its enticement, Sin is well served. Given God’s much more appealing provision, God should be served all the more diligently.

The lesson is strikingly simple: serve God, not Sin. Choose life, not death. And yet most of us frequently choose poorly.

If the results are so disparate, why do people choose sin? Will you take the wage or grace? Do these life and death results cast shadows into the present or are they only eschatological? Are you experiencing God’s gift of eternal life? If you have accepted the gift, do you still appreciate it? Who are you serving, God or Sin?

You have a choice. Live or die.
Every breath is a choice.
Every minute is a choice.
To be or not to be. - Chuck Palahniuk (b. 1962), Survivor, p. 161

It’s All Good!?!?! (Romans 8:28)

What works for good with those who love God? Everything (Romans 8:28)

Romans 8 is one of the most encouraging chapters of the Bible. Its thrust is assurance and its most famous verse is Romans 8:28.

And we know that God causes all things to work together for good to those who love God, to those who are called according to His purpose. (Romans 8:28 NASB)

Romans 8:28 marks the beginning of the end of a prominent section of the epistle (Romans 8:18-30) and is, not surprisingly, one of the Bible’s most beloved verses.

Robert J. Morgan (b. 1952) acclaims:

Romans 8:28 is the favorite verse of millions around the world. It’s arguably the greatest promise in the Bible, for it summarizes all the others. It’s the biblical basis for optimism and the promise that morphs us into resilient sanguines, whatever our temperament. It’s God’s darkroom in which negatives become positive. It’s His situation-reversal machine in which heartaches are changed into hallelujahs. (Morgan, 100 Bible Verses Everyone Should Know by Heart, 114)

This same affirmation can also be one of the Bible’s most difficult lines. D. Edmund Hiebert (1910-1995) explains:

Faced with the sufferings and catastrophic experiences of life, many believers and even Christian leaders have found it difficult to accept this categorical assertion. During World War II a prominent preacher designated Romans 8:28 as “the hardest verse in the Bible to believe.” (Zuck, “Romans 8:28-29 and the Assurance of the Believer”, Vital Biblical Issues: Examining Problem Passages of the Bible, 142)

The verse is also one of the most Bible’s misunderstood and misused passages. Larry Osborne (b. 1952) tantalizes:

No verse gets misquoted more often when it comes to trying to make sense out of life’s trials. Christians and even non-Christians who have a nodding acquaintance with the Bible quote it more often than all other verses combined. It’s the favorite proof text for the everything-is-good-if-you-wait-long-enough crowd. It’s plastered on coffee mugs, posters, greeting cards, and all kinds of junk...It sounds well. It sells well...But Romans 8:28 doesn’t say or mean what most people think it does. It doesn’t even apply to a large percentage of those who turn to it for comfort. (Osborne, 10 Dumb Things Smart Christians Believe, 89)

Luke Timothy Johnson (b. 1943) agrees:

It is a statement whose precise meaning is obscure in any case but has also become dangerously distorted by being used out of context. For some Christians the verse has become a kind of pious slogan used to mollify grief or assuage anger in the face of hard experience, having the bromidal effect of, “Don’t worry, God will make everything turn out all right.”...In fact, Paul does not claim that absolutely everything works out fine for every person, whether they “love God” (one of the few times he uses this traditional designation for the pious; see I Corinthians 2:9; James 1:12, 2:5) or not. (Johnson, Reading Romans: A Literary and Theological Commentary, 141-42)

A lot of the misunderstanding is attributed to the passage’s traditional translation, particularly the King James Version. Robert Jewett (b. 1933) discloses:

The old-fashioned translation of Romans 8:28 is somewhat misleading: “Everything works together for good to those who love God.” This translation often led to the false conclusion that God causes everything, including all evil, and that every evil intent has a specific purpose in the divine plan. Paul is actually stating something much more limited and more reasonable. It is not that God causes all evil, but that in everything, whether good or bad, God works for good. (Jewett, Romans (Basic Bible Commentary), 100)

Most modern translations have altered the wording to demonstrate this reality.

The verse begins with the appeal to a shared understanding - “we know.” Paul uses this expression six times in Romans (Romans 2:2, 3:19, 7:14, 8:22, 26, 28). Solomon Andria(tsimialomananarivo) (b. 1950) supposes:

Paul uses the words we know to introduce a truth that would be well known to both Jewish and non-Jewish believers in Rome. But knowing something intellectually is not the same as understanding it and grasping its implications. So Paul sets out to explain the truth. (Andria, Romans (Africa Bible Commentary Series), 157)

Some have seen this shared understanding as emanating from an accepted axiom. Peter Stuhlmacher (b. 1932) informs:

The tradition concerning which the apostle reminds the Romans extends...further. According to a common Jewish teaching, a person should get in the habit of saying, “Everything which the All-merciful does, he does for the good” (Babylonian Talmud Berakoth 60b). Paul takes up this tradition and applies it to the matter...discussed. (Stuhlmacher, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 136)

Consequently, Romans 8:28 did not represent an entirely new paradigm for the Romans. Even so, though similar expressions were prevalent during the period, Paul is not appealing to tradition as the basis for his statement is something new - Jesus.

Leon Morris (1914-2006) determines:

It is not difficult to cite sayings from the ancient world of the “In the end everything will turn out all right” type, and it is urged that Paul is not simply repeating a commonplace, and moreover one that leaves God out. Nor is it likely in the sense in which we find this thought in the Old Testament and Jewish writings (cf. Genesis 50:20; Ecclesiastes 8:12; Sirach 39:24-27), in the first instance because they do not say what Paul is saying and in the second because of necessity they omit what Christ is doing and that is central in Paul’s present argument as it moves on to the way of salvation. (Morris, The Epistle to the Romans (Pillar New Testament Commentary), 330)

As Morris alludes, some have seen the Joseph saga (especially Genesis 50:20) as an exemplar of Romans 8:28. Matthew N.O. Sadiku (b. 1955) compares:

Joseph is a good example of how God works evil plans for good for those who love him. All things worked together for Joseph’s good because God’s purposes could not be thwarted. Like in the case of Joseph, what happens to us at times may not be “good,” but God has a way of making it work for our ultimate good. (Sadiku, Romans: A Pentecostal Commentary, 131-32)

Donald R. Sunukjian (b. 1941) disagrees:

The story of Joseph does not really fit the teaching of Romans 8:28. The point of Genesis 50:20 is that God used the brothers’ evil intentions to bring about good circumstances in Joseph’s life. But that’s not the point of Romans 8:28...The point of Romans 8:28-30 is that God will work in your sufferings and weaknesses to produce the good character of Christlikeness. (Sunukjian, Invitation to Biblical Preaching: Proclaiming Truth With Clarity and Relevance, 133)

Paul is not drawing from popular wisdom, Old Testament experience or brilliant conjecture. Romans 8:28 is developed from conviction and personal experience.

Manfred T. Brauch (b. 1940) reminds:

Apart from anything else which might be said about this text, it is clear within the context of Romans 8 that it expresses Paul’s deep faith and trust in the loving purposes of God. We must remember that this affirmation is not the result of abstract rationalization or theologizing. It is, furthermore, not a word which emerges from the lips of one whose life coasted along in serenity, uninterrupted by the stresses and strains, the pains and perplexities, the turmoil and tragedies which most human beings experience to one degree or another. (Brauch, Hard Sayings of Paul, 48)

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

‘We know’ that this is so, says Paul, speaking as one who had proved its truth in his own experience, finding, for example, that his hardships turned out for the furtherance of the gospel (Philippians 1:12) and that his sorest and most disagreeable trials were the means by which the power of Christ rested on him (II Corinthians 12:9-10). (Bruce, Romans (Tyndale New Testament Commentaries), 162)

Given Paul’s experience and the context, there has been discussion as to what is included in the term “all things” and even what part of speech it entails. This expression could technically be the grammatical subject of the verse (instead of “God”). Some manuscripts eliminate the confusion.

F. Leroy Forlines (b. 1926) explains:

Some Greek manuscripts have a longer reading, adding “God” (Greek, ho theos) as the subject of the verb “works together”...Neither the Textus Receptus, the Majority Text nor the United Bible Society Text includes this...The commonly accepted reading is referred to as the “shorter reading.” (Forlines, Romans (Randall House Bible Commentary), 230)

Contextually, God is the more likely subject. Romans 8:28 marks a turning point in the chapter as the prime mover shifts from “the Spirit” to “God”. God is the subject of most of the verbs, evidence that God is also the one doing the work in the processes discussed.

As to what “all things” entails, Brendan Byrne (b. 1939) defines:

“All things” could refer to or at least include the non-human created world (“creation” [Romans 8:19-22]) and the Spirit (Romans 8:26-27). But Paul is more likely to have in mind the sufferings of the present time (Romans 8:18) that form the context for hope. Other things being equal, these would normally be considered “evil.” But for those whose lives are enveloped in God’s love even these things work for “good”. (Byrne, Romans (Sacra Pagina Series) , 267)

Kenneth Boa (b. 1945) and William Kruidenier (b. 1948) concur:

The suffering (Romans 8:17) and groaning (Romans 8:23) that Paul has been discussing is what is in view in Romans 8:28. When we find ourselves in trying circumstances in life, we can know that in all things God works for the good of those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. (Boa and Kruidenier, Romans (Holman New Testament Commentary), 259)

Thomas R. Schreiner (b. 1954) determines:

In saying that all things work together for good πάντα [“all things”] focuses especially on sufferings and tribulations, but the all-encompassing character of the term should not be ignored. What is remarkable, though, is that even suffering and tribulation turn out for the good of the Christian. The idea expressed here cannot be compared to Stoicism or to a Pollyanish view of life. The former is excluded in Paul’s creational theology, which posits God as the Lord, creator, and personal governor of the world. The latter is a misunderstanding of the text, for the text does not say all things are intrinsically good or pleasant, but instead that the most agonizing sufferings and evils inflicted on believers will be turned to their good by God. (Schreiner, Romans (Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament), 449-450)

Given that suffering is included prominently beneath the umbrella of “all things”, many find the passage difficult to stomach. Anne Graham Lotz (b. 1948) admits:

You may immediately question how the pregnancy of your unmarried daughter can work for your good, or how God can work even a divorce for your good, or how the loss of your job can be for your good, or how your terminal illness can be for your good. If, by “good,” Romans 8:28 meant your comfort, convenience, health, wealth, prosperity, pleasure, or happiness, we would all question it! But your ultimate good is conformity to the image of Jesus Christ. And when you are in God’s will—“called according to his purpose”—everything God allows into your life is used by Him to make you like Christ. Everything! (Lotz, The Vision of His Glory, 27)

As Lotz underscores, one of the keys to interpreting the verse is one’s definition of good. Ernst Käsemann (1906-1998) acknowledges, “In the underlying tradition of antiquity it means the happy outcome of strange earthly events, and the use in Judaism is much the same (Käsemann, Commentary on Romans, 243).”

In this context, the term takes on a different meaning. Karl Barth (1886-1968) defines:

The Good is the beholding of the Redeemer and of Redemption, the attainment of the living Point beyond the point of death, the beginning of that awaiting which is no awaiting, of that not-knowing which is the supreme apprehending, and of that apprehending of sin and death, devil and hell, which is the supreme not-knowing. The Good is the very love of God towards men who stand before Him rich and well-clothed, because they are still poor and naked. (Barth, The Epistle to the Romans, 320)

D. Stuart Briscoe (b. 1930) distinguishes:

It is eternal rather than temporal good which God has in mind. He works “according to His purpose,” which is far grander than the alleviation of the unpleasantness of the present or a guarantee of plain sailing under cloudless skies in the foreseeable future. He is in the “good” business of making redeemed sinners like their elder brother, the Lord Jesus, and even a cursory glance at the way the Father exposed the Son to the realities of life and death should be sufficient to remind us that we can expect the same kind of processes to work in our lives with the identical and ultimate result—conformity to Him. (Briscoe, Romans (Mastering the New Testament), 176)

Randy Alcorn (b. 1954) clarifies:

Romans 8:28 declares a cumulative and ultimate good, not an individual or immediate good...When Paul says, “for good,” he clearly implies final or ultimate good, not good subjectively felt in the midst of our sufferings. As his wife, Joy, underwent cancer treatments, C.S. Lewis [1898-1963] wrote to a friend, “We are not necessarily doubting that God will due the best for us: we are wondering how painful the best will turn out to be.”...We define our good in terms of what brings us health and happiness now; God defines it in terms of what makes us more like Jesus. (Alcorn, If God Is Good: Faith in the Midst of Suffering and Evil, 288-89)

An improper view of what is “good” has led to an improper understanding of the passage. Henry T. Blackaby (1935) and Richard Blackaby (b. 1961) note:

People often misunderstand Romans 8:28. Some assume that this promise means God will turn every bad situation into a good situation. But the Bible doesn’t say that. It says that God can use any situation—even the worst experience—to produce good results in a Christian’s life. (Blackaby and Blackaby, TruthQuest: TQ120a, 40)

While this discussion of “good” does not eliminate suffering, it is equally comforting. R. Kent Hughes (b. 1942) advises:

These words have eternal rather than our temporal good in mind...The specific good will be seen when we are glorified as we are conformed to the image of Christ. The Christian should not view present distresses and reversals as ultimately destructive. In some manner they are preparing us for the future revelation of God’s glory. (Hughes, Romans: Righteousness from Heaven (Preaching the Word),167)

Not all actions are good, but they are being worked towards a good purpose. This is a powerful promise but its benefits are not universal. Ben Witherington III (b. 1951) cautions:

It is crucial to the argument here that Paul is talking about Christians. For Christians who are called, all things work together. Paul is not talking about some evolutionary or inevitable process that happens like magic for believers. He is referring to the sovereignty and providence of God over all things and processes. God is the one who works things out, as the alternate textual reading, which inserts ho theos, “God,” makes even clearer. (Witherington, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Socio-Rhetorical Commentary, 226-27)

Grant R. Osborne (b. 1942) analyzes:

This is promised to those who love him, who have been called according to his purpose. In the Greek, the two frame the promise, with “to those who love him” at the beginning of the verse. The question is whether this is restrictive (it works only for Christians when they love God) or comforting (by nature all Christians love God and are called). The latter is far more likely, for this is a passage of encouragement rather than warning. (Osborne, Romans (IVP New Testament Commentary), 220)

Paul J. Achtemeier (b. 1927) sees a parallel in a parable:

There is another parable of Jesus appropriate to this passage from Romans...and that is the parable of catching and sorting of fish (Matthew 13:47-50). It is a parable of final judgment, when good is separated from bad. To those who find in Jesus the expression of God’s faithfulness to his commitment to the redemption of creation, anticipation of such a judgment is a matter of joy rather than fear, since judgment is another expression of the certainty of the future being in God’s hands. That of course is the point emphasized in Romans 8:28-30. Judgment that apart from Christ can only induce fear can, with the guarantee of his presence provided by the Spirit, be a cause of joyful anticipation. Taken together, these two passages tells us of a coming judgment (Matthew 13:47-50) which we may face with confidence. (Achtemeier, Romans (Interpretation: A Bible Commentary for Teaching & Preaching), 147)

Arland J. Hultgren (b. 1939) summarizes:

Paul is saying that God works for the good of all who love him in every conceivable situation. Whatever one faces (including suffering), God is present and active to work for a good outcome, which may well be realized only eschatalogically in final salvation, but ultimately the promise is sure. That perspective coheres theologically with the rest of this section (Romans 8:18-30), which sees suffering – both on the part of humans and of the rest of creation – in light of eschatalogical hope. (Hultgren, Paul’s Letter to the Romans: A Commentary, 326)

Francis A. Schaeffer (1912-1984) adds:

Returning to Romans 8:28, it is not that in some magical way everything really is fine, even when our observation and experience sees and feels the sorrows of the present world. No, it is because God is the infinite God He is that in spite of the abnormality of all things now, He can in the midst of the battle bring good for His people out of abnormality. (Schaeffer, A Christian View of Spirituality, 206)

The verse presumes a God who is not only active in the world but present with us in our suffering. N.T. Wright (b. 1948) illumines:

Romans 8:28 is a much-loved promise for many who have learned by it to trust God in the many varied and often troubling circumstances of our lives. The world is still groaning, and we with it; but God is with us in the groaning, and will bring it out for good. (Wright, Paul for Everyone: Romans, Part One, 156)

This should provide the Christian with blessed assurance. John Piper (b. 1946) expounds:

Once you walk through the door of love into the massive, unshakable structure of Romans 8:28 everything changes. There come into your life stability and depth and freedom. You simply can’t be blown over any more. The confidence that a sovereign God governs for your good all the pain and all the pleasure that you will ever experience is an incomparable refuge and security and hope and power in your life. When God’s people really live by the future grace of Romans 8:28—from measles to the mortuary—they are the freest and strongest and most generous people in the world. (Piper, Future Grace, 123)

How would you put this verse into your own words? How do “we know” the truth of Romans 8:28? Is this a hard verse for you to believe? What is the hardest Bible verse for you to accept? Have you ever found comfort in Romans 8:28? What is your favorite part of Paul’s affirmation? Does “all things” include our own sinful acts? Whose good is being worked towards? What do all things work towards to those who do not believe? Does this verse imply that everything falls within the scope of God’s will? What elements are working together to produce good?

Much ink has been spilled as to what is working together for the ultimate good. John Murray (1898-1975) recounts:

Some of the ablest expositors maintain that “work together” does not mean that all things work in concert and cooperation but that all things work in concert with the believer or with God. But it is unnecessary and perhaps arbitrary to depart from the more natural sense, namely, that in the benign and all-embracing plan of God the discrete elements all work together for good to them that love God. It is not to be supposed that they have any virtue or efficacy in themselves to work in concert for this end. Though not expressed, the ruling thought is that in the sovereign love and wisdom of God they are all made to converge and contribute to that goal. Many of the things comprised are evil in themselves and it is the marvel of God’s wisdom and grace that they, when taken in concert with the whole, are made to work for good. Not one detail works ultimately for evil to the people of God; in the end only good will be there lot. (Murray, The Epistle to the Romans: The English Text with Introduction, Exposition and Notes, 314)

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

The...rendering ‘work together’ makes too much of the separate meanings of the components of the Greek compound verb: it is better translated by some such expression as ‘prove advantageous’, ‘be profitable’. Paul’s meaning is that all things, even those which seem most adverse and hurtful, such as persecution and death itself, are profitable to those who truly love God. (Cranfield, Romans: A Shorter Commentary, 204)

Douglas J. Moo (b. 1950) concurs:

This verse may not be promising that all things will work together for good. I have heard the verse preached with just this point as the central emphasis. God, so the preacher argued, does not promise to bring good to us in every situation. Rather, as a cook combines ingredients to make a tasty dish of food, so God mixes together the circumstances of life in such a way as to ultimately bring good to us...There are two reasons for hesitating to embrace this “mixing” idea. (a) The verb used here (synergeo) may not mean “work together.” To be sure, in its three other New Testament occurrences, it does seem to have this meaning (see I Corinthians 16:16; II Corinthians 6:1; James 2:22). But the verb often lost the “with” idea in the period Paul was writing...(b) Even if we do translate “work together,” it is by no means clear that “all things” are working with each other. It is equally plausible that Paul means that all things work together with the Spirit, with God, or with believers to produce good. (Moo, Romans: The NIV Application Commentary, 277)

The practical question is whether the believer has a part in the working out of all things together for good. Dale Moody (1915-1992) descries:

Romans 8:28 says that God “co-operates for good with those who love God, and are called according to his purpose” (NEB), yet for centuries now the KJV of 1611 has been followed which says “all things work together for good,” as if human co-operation is excluded from God’s purpose. The human co-operation of faith, hope and love has been blasted as synergism, yet Paul uses the Greek verb synergei! (Moody, The Word of Truth: A Summary of Christian Doctrine Based on Biblical Revelation, 314)

David L. Bartlett (b. 1941) concludes:

Paul is not saying that for Christians everything is always for the best. He is saying that in everything God works towards the best in partnership with those who love God...Christians do not need to say that every tragedy or loss is part of God’s plan. We can say that in every tragedy or loss God is still God and still moves our lives and all of history toward what is good...Even when contemplating the enormous tragedies of human history, natural disaster, or human viciousness, faith reminds us that God is still at work in the midst of evil, working toward the good. The question, Why did God let this happen? is unanswerable. The questions we may begin to answer are, What can God do with this evil to help bring about the good? How can we be God’s partners, God’s servants in the work? (Bartlett, Romans (Westminster Bible Companion) 78)

“If all things do not always please me, they will always benefit me...This is the best promise of this life.” - Charles Haddon Spurgeon (1834-1892)