Referencia de Paulo Às Mulheres Na Carta Aos Romanos

Paul's References to Women in His Letter to the Romans and
Their Function in the Argument of the Letter: A Modest

Proposal
Christoph Stenschke
Neotestamentica, Volume 54, Number 1, 2020, pp. 1-45 (Article)
Published by New Testament Society of Southern Africa

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1353/neo.2020.0010
For additional information about this article

https://muse.jhu.edu/article/761679
[ Access provided at 28 Aug 2020 11:13 GMT from Ebsco Publishing ]

Paul’s References to Women in His Letter to
the Romans and Their Function in the
Argument of the Letter: A Modest Proposal
Christoph Stenschke
University of South Africa
Abstract
Paul’s references to women in his letter to the Romans and their
probable backdrop against the situation in Rome and Paul’s own
circumstances in the mid-fifties of the first century CE have rarely
been examined. This article first addresses some of the methodological
challenges involved in this quest and sketches the historical
background. Discussion also includes Tacitus’s account of a
particularly unsettling event in Annales 11.12–38 and its conceivable
bearing on Romans. It then discusses Paul’s references to some
women, to women in general, to named individual women and to
female characteristics or activities in Romans 1:26, 4:19, 7:2–3, 8:22,
9:9–12, 16:1–2 and 16:3–15. While women occur in unqualified
traditional roles in marriage, family and society when Paul makes
general and abstract references in some passages, Paul also mentions
women who fulfil new roles in specific and concrete references, where
he wholeheartedly praises them.
Key Terms
Paul, apostle; Romans, Letter to the; women in Pauline literature;
women in early Christianity; Sarah; Rebekah; Prisca/Priscilla; Junia;
rhetoric; Roman women; Messalina; Claudius
1 Introduction
In his longest extant letter, and arguably his most important letter, Paul
refers to women in different ways. 1 In this article, we analyse these general
1
Relative to its length, there is a considerable number of references to women in Romans. Such
concentration is otherwise only to be found in 1 Corinthians (see Meyers, Craven and Kraemer
2000, 470–479). For a survey of feminist approaches to Romans, see McGinn (2004). We leave
Neotestamentica 54.1 (2020) 1–45

© New Testament Society of Southern Africa
2 C. Stenschke / Neotestamentica 54.1 (2020) 1–45
and specific references to women and examine what portrait emerges of

them. 2 Where and how do they appear in the argument of Romans? Are the
diverging statements related to each other, and if so, how?
There are a number of issues involved that need attention before we
can begin our quest. One of the problems is that in Greek grammar male
terms can include women (e.g., the plural ἀδελφοί refers to male and female
siblings) and verb forms in the plural also include women and men. Thus, a
minimalist approach to our quest would be to focus on statements that have
an unequivocal female reference (e.g., a female name), while a maximalist
approach would be to exclude only statements with unequivocal male
reference and emphasise that all other statements refer to and include
women—which is surely Paul’s intention. 3 Tamez’s (2004) article,
“Justification as Good News for Women: A Re-Reading of Romans 1–8,”
rightly reminds us that throughout the letter women are in view. This
approach is beyond the scope of one article. While we pursue here a
minimalist approach, Paul’s general statements that include women before
faith, in the appropriation of salvation, in Christian existence and experience
and in the consummation of their faith, and their implications, are noted
occasionally.
Recent studies of Romans rightly take the historical situation of the
letter (as indicated in Rom 1:1–15 and 15:14–16:27) seriously and attempt
to understand the letter against the background of Paul’s own circumstances
and plans at the time of writing as well as the situation of the addressees in
Rome and of Roman values in the mid-fifties of the first century CE. This
approach is taken, for example, by Haacker (2012) and Jewett (2007) in their
commentaries, but also appears elsewhere in recent studies of Romans. 4
aside discussions of gender as a construct. In general, Paul follows Jewish traditions when
distinguishing humanity into men and women (see Gen 1:27). However, his brief references in
Rom 1:26–27 suggest that such distinctions may not be as clear cut as commonly assumed. For
discussion, see Conway (2014), O’Brien (2014) and http://www.oxfordbibliographies.com/view/
document/obo-9780195393361/obo-9780195393361-0131.xml.
2
This quest has to be supplemented by examining both general/abstract statements of people
clearly identified in Romans as males and specific/concrete references to named or unnamed men.
3
E.g., Jewett (2007, 433) writes with reference to Rom 7:4: “all are members of the new fictive
family in Christ. As in other references, confirmed in this instance by the warm greetings to female
leaders in chap 16, the term ‘brothers’ refers to congregational members, whether male or female.”
The same applies to Paul’s references to “sons,” which include women as daughters (see, e.g., Rom
9:26; Jewett 2007, 601).
4
Haacker (2012, 15) writes: “Noch wenig diskutiert ist die Frage, in welchem Maße der Röm eine
spezifisch homiletische (oder hermeneutische) Dimension hat, d. h., inwieweit die Besonderheiten
des Röm im Vergleich mit anderen Paulusbriefen auf den Versuch einer Kontextualisation des
Evangeliums im römischen Milieu zurückzuführen sind. Die Dominanz der Friedensthematik, aber
auch das Reden von der Gerechtigkeit an hervorgehobenen Stellen des Briefes könnten ungeachtet
anderer Gründe auch homiletisch bedingt sein. Paulus wird als römischer Bürger von Hause aus
mit gewissen Grundbegriffen römischer Weltanschauung vertraut gewesen sein und hatte schon in
References to Women in Romans and Their Function in the Argument 3
Here, we summarise aspects of this historical background that are relevant

for Paul’s references to women and the nature of these references.
1.1 Women in Rome
The first century BCE and CE saw several attempts by Roman legislation to
enforce marriage and fertility and to restrict the roles of women and wives
in Rome (e.g., the lex Julia). 5 In his study Roman Wives, Roman Widows:
The Appearance of New Women and the Pauline Communities, Winter
(2003) traces in detail the development of Roman restrictive policy against
women and wives, and in particular the so-called “new women.” 6 In a recent
work, Wheeler-Reid (2018) analyses the imperial efforts to impose marriage
and celibacy as the preferred cultural norms during this period.
In addition to legislation and the developments to which these laws
were a response, there were spectacular scandals in the capital, including
adultery in the highest stratum of society. Haacker (2012) suggests with
regard to Rom 7:2–3:
Korinth, dem wahrscheinlichen Abfassungsort des Röm, eine (als Kolonie) besonders römische
Stadt vor Augen. Die vorliegende Auslegung ist bestrebt, auf mögliche Bezugnahmen auf römische
Verhältnisse und römisches Gedankengut hinzuweisen, ohne die pastoralen und missions-
strategischen Ziele des Schreibens oder den Dialog mit dem Judentum in ihrer Bedeutung
herunterzuspielen” (italics added). See also Haacker’s (2003) chapter, “To the Romans a Roman?
The Rhetoric of Romans as a Model for Preaching the Gospel in Rome.” A number of recent studies
of Romans from an empire-critical perspective confirm the usefulness of this approach. For a
survey, see Stenschke (2012). Other recent commentaries on Romans are Wolter (2014) and
Schnabel (2015; 2016).
5
The architects of Augustan marriage legislation assumed that the upper age limit for marriage
was 20 for women and 25 for men. Kunst (2006, 37) writes: “Der augusteischen Ehegesetzgebung
ist dieser Zweck, die weibliche Fruchtbarkeit voll auszuschöpfen, zugeschrieben worden. Das
Gesetzwerk sah die Pflicht zur Ehe vor, so dass Ehelosigkeit für Männer zwischen 25 und 60 sowie
für Frauen zwischen 20 und 50 sozial wie politisch zu einem gravierenden Nachteil wurde.” On
the purpose of marriage to control female sexuality, see Kunst (2006, 39). For the political
background of the legislation, see Mette-Dittmann (1991).
6
Winter (2003) describes the appearances of new wives, discussing wives and the legal power of
husbands, wives and the portrayal of affectionate husbands, wives and unfaithful husbands, the
new women in contemporary writers and Roman social values in the East. He then traces the
reflection of the emerging “new wives” in Roman legislation, including Augustus’s marriage
legislation of 17 BCE, reactions to Augustus’s legislation, the subsequent response to Augustus
and amendments to the legislation in 9 CE. Before turning to Paul (1 Cor 11:2–16; 1 Tim 2:9–15;
5:11–15; Titus 2:3–5), Winter also traces philosophical responses to the new wives. A final chapter
traces the appearance of women in the public sphere. The volume closes with ancient sources on
women in civic affairs, including Junia Theodora, Claudia Metrodora from Chios and Claudia
Metrodora from Ephesos (see also Kunst 2006). Concerning the motivation for what, to modern
readers, appears like a Roman obsession with childbearing, Kunst (2006, 36) notes: “Man nimmt
heute an, dass unter den demografischen Bedingungen der Spätrepublik und frühen Kaiserzeit eine
Frau im Durchschnitt sechs lebende Kinder gebären musste, um eine gleichbleibende
Bevölkerungsdichte aufrecht zu erhalten.” Add to this need the aristocratic elitism and the ethnic
concern that the capital would be flooded with peregrini.
The readers . . . probably would have remembered distinctively a

. . . grave incident from the recent past, namely the scandalous life
of Valeria Messalina, the wife of emperor Claudius, which
culminated in a second formal wedding ceremony while her
(undivorced) husband was still alive, a behaviour for which she
paid with her life, see Tacitus, Annals 11,12–38. (p. 168) 7
Tacitus recounts events that took place in the years 47/48 CE. In his account,
the focus is clearly on the response of the emperor (or lack thereof) and his
entourage, but Messalina’s scandalous behaviour also appears in some
detail:
Of Messalina it is said that she had a new and almost insane passion.
She had grown so frantically enamoured of Caius Silius, the
handsomest of the young nobility of Rome, that she drove from his
bed Junia Silana, a high-born lady, and had her lover wholly to
herself. Silius was not unconscious of his wickedness and his peril;
but a refusal would have insured destruction, and he had some hope
of escaping exposure; the prize too was great, so he consoled
himself by awaiting the future and enjoying the present. As for her,
careless of concealment, she went continually with a numerous
retinue to his house, she haunted his steps, showered on him wealth
and honours, and, at last, as though empire had passed to another,
the slaves, the freedmen, the very furniture of the emperor were to
be seen in the possession of the paramour. . . .
Then too ended Claudius’ blindness as to his domestic affairs.
He was soon compelled to notice and punish his wife’s infamies . . .
. . . Messalina, now grown weary of the very facility of her
adulteries, was rushing into strange excesses, when even Silius,
either through some fatal infatuation or because he imagined that,
amid the dangers which hung over him, danger itself was the best
safety, urged the breaking off of all concealment. “They were not,”
he said, “in such an extremity as to have to wait for the emperor’s
old age.” Harmless measures were for the innocent. Crime once
exposed had no refuge but in audacity. They had accomplices in all
who feared the same fate. For himself, as he had neither wife nor
child, he was ready to marry and to adopt Britannicus. Messalina
would have the same power as before, with the additional
advantage of a quiet mind, if only they took Claudius by surprise,
who, though unsuspicious of treachery, was hasty in his wrath. . . .
7
All translations of German sources into English in the main text are mine.
The suggestion was coldly received, not because the lady loved
her husband, but from a fear that Silius, after attaining his highest
hopes, would spurn an adulteress, and soon estimate at its true value
the crime which in the midst of peril he had approved. But she
craved the name of wife, for the sake of the monstrous infamy, that
last source of delight to the reckless. She waited only till Claudius
set out for Ostia to perform a sacrifice, and then celebrated all the
solemnities of marriage.
These events occurred just eight or nine years before Romans was written
(56/57 CE being the most likely years of composition; see Schnelle 2013,
135–139). In the context of reporting these events, Tacitus describes Rome
as “a city which knows everything and hides nothing” (11.27). Paul’s
emphasis on the subordination of women in Rom 7:2–3, the analogy of
adultery by women and also other characterisations of women in Romans
are probably related to this situation, although this was only the most
prominent example of a wider development in society.
1.2 The Christians of Rome
According to Acts 18:2–3, the Christian communities of Rome had

undergone a major crisis a few years before Paul’s anticipated visit to the
city. 8 In 49 CE, Emperor Claudius expelled the Jews from Rome, including
Jewish Christians. Paul had met some of these refugees in the East and
collaborated with them in spreading the gospel. Since Nero did not prolong
Claudius’s edict after coming to power in the autumn of the year 54 CE, the
Jews, including Jewish Christians, could return to Rome. Paul’s list of
greetings in Rom 16:3–15 suggests that many had done so. With their return,
the composition of the communities and the roles played by gentile and
Jewish Christians would have shifted once more. 9 Romans 14:1–15:13
indicates tensions within the communities. At the same time, the Christian
communities would have been under the watchful eyes of Roman officials
and the Jewish community, with the latter being eager to distinguish itself
from this new movement. Any further unrest or questionable behaviour
8
Even in critical scholarship on Acts, this note is usually accepted, as there is confirmation from
ancient sources (Suetonius; Dio Cassius). See the detailed discussion in Keener (2014, 2697–
2711). On the nature of Acts and its historical reliability, see the detailed discussion in Keener
(2012, 90–257, 320–382).
9
In his recent commentary, Wolter (2014, 30–56) questions this consensus reconstruction of the
ecclesial situation. For earlier criticism, see Vorster (1994).
among the Jewish minority or the gentiles associated with them could lead
to yet another expulsion from Rome. 10
Announcing his visit to Rome for the summer of 56/57 CE, Paul
would enter into a precarious situation. In Rom 14:1–15:13, Paul, in his
letter to announce and prepare his impending visit, ensures that he will not
take sides in these current conflicts and will argue for mutual tolerance. 11
Other passages also suggest that Paul was informed about the situation in
Rome and in its Christian communities. Probably against this backdrop,
Paul affirms the authority of the Roman rulers 12 and indicates that he will
not undermine morals. While in Rome, he will not say or do anything that
would cause division within the communities or endanger his fellow
Christians with regard to outsiders. Paul’s attempt at providing assurance in
relation to his coming visit is also discernible behind his references to
women in Romans.
1.3 The controversial Jewish apostle
The unstable situation in Rome was not helped by Paul’s previous ministry
and reputation. His mission in the East had caused unrest in many places, as
the book of Acts illustrates and as Paul hints at himself in Rom 16:7 (“my
fellow prisoners”). While it is difficult to assess whether and to what extent
this could have been known generally in Rome, it would surely have been
known to the city’s Christian communities. In view of the situation
described above, a visit by a man of this reputation was far from harmless.
In addition, Paul had many opponents, most of them Jewish Christians, who
might already have arrived in Rome or were on their way and would use
whatever they could get their hands on to discredit Paul (see Paul’s strong
warning of them in Rom 16:17–19). 13 Against this backdrop, the Christians
greeted in Rom 16 play a significant role, as they can testify to Paul’s
ministry and theology.
In Rom 3:8 (“And why not say—as some people slander us by saying
that we say—let us do evil so that good may come? Their condemnation is
10
For Roman policy regarding the Jews (much of it also applies to other minorities), see Baltrusch
(2002) and Alvarez-Cineira (1999, 160–260).
11
In Rom 14:1–15:7, Paul tells the Roman Christians in advance how he sees their current conflicts.
While Paul indicates his own preference for the position of the “strong,” he does not put any
pressure on the “weak,” but argues for mutual tolerance and acceptance. For a detailed discussion,
see Gäckle (2005) and Reasoner (1999).
12
In Rom 13:1–7, Paul outlines how the Roman Christians should conduct themselves vis-à-vis
the Roman authorities. At the same time, Paul indirectly subverts and deconstructs the claims of
empire, also in Rom 13:1–7 (see Stenschke 2012; Elliott 2008).
13
For the identity of the false teachers, see Jewett (2007, 991–992), Porter (2005) and Sumney
(2000).
deserved!” 14), Paul acknowledges that he is controversial, refers to

slanderous representations of his gospel and refutes this malevolent reductio
ad absurdum. Also at other places in the letter, Paul defends himself against
charges that were levelled against him or that he anticipates. The claims of
his opponents and Paul’s refutation of them probably also appear indirectly
elsewhere in Romans. Hübner (1996, 146) argues that the questions
repeatedly adduced in the letter that structure the argument are not those of
an imaginary interlocutor used as a rhetorical device (as was argued by
Bultmann [1910] 1984), but rather objections mainly from a Jewish
Christian perspective, which were indeed presented against Paul and his
theology. This is particularly apparent in Rom 3:8, 6:1 and 7:7. Some critical
statements regarding the law in the letter, in particular its limitation (3:19–
20; 5:20–21), were open to misunderstanding and needed further explana-
tion.
However, although Paul was a champion of the inclusion of gentiles
into the people of God without requiring observance of the torah, he was not
a libertinist, as the letter amply indicates in theory and practical paraenesis.
Paul’s references to women must also be understood in view of this strategy,
which is apparent elsewhere in the letter. He refutes slanderous misrepresen-
tations of his position with regard to women and their role in the Christian
communities 15 through allusions to the law (its narratives and legal
stipulations) and its condemnation of certain practices in traditional Jewish
language. In this way, Paul indicates that during his visit he will not
undermine morals in this regard (or otherwise), and that he has not done so
elsewhere (see below for more detail on Rom 7:2–3). He will not draw
unwanted attention from the outside to the Roman Christian congregations.
1.4 The Roman reputation of religions from the East
To Roman eyes, Paul, the Jew, comes to Rome as a proponent of an Eastern

religion. Not only does he make no attempt to hide this fact in his letter, but
he also deliberately emphasises it: Jesus, the true Son of God, comes from
the house of David (1:3); Jesus is the “root of Jesse” (15:12); the messianic
deliverer will come from Zion (11:26); etcetera. Paul’s gospel is thoroughly
Jewish (see Stenschke 2012). In Rome, some Eastern religions were accused
of undermining traditional Roman mores with regard to women and family.
14
Unless indicated otherwise, all Bible translations are from the NRSV.
15
Paul’s statements regarding marriage and celibacy in 1 Cor 7 and/or his equation of men and
women in salvation in Gal 3:28 (“neither male nor female”) may have played a role in this. The
inclusion of Haustafeln in some letters could be due to this backdrop.
A drastic and long-remembered instance was the scandal concerning the

Bacchanalia in the year 186 BCE, during which adherents of Dionysos or
Bacchus (Lat. Liber Pater) were perceived as undermining Roman morality
(see Alvarez-Cineira 1999, 134–138; Klauck 1995, 96–104; Foucher 1981).
Alvarez-Cineira (1999) notes that this god from the East had a bad
reputation in the early principate:
Augustus, the guardian of public morality, could not accept such a

cult that infringed against moral rules. The affair of the Bacchanalia
and its destabilising and immoral impact on the state had not yet
been forgotten. Add to this the political propaganda of Antonius,
who presented himself as a new Dionysos in Egypt. After his
victory over Antonius, Augustus could in no way accept a cult that
had been associated with his opponent. His successor held a similar
position. Under the reign of Claudius, genuine Bacchanalia were
celebrated at the imperial court. . . . It was the last orgy of
Messalina. (pp. 134–135)
Tacitus reports that in this celebration Messalina and her now husband Silius
(see above) played the roles of Ariadne and Dionysos in their mystical
marriage union (ἱερογαμία):
Messalina meanwhile, more wildly profligate than ever, was

celebrating in mid-autumn a representation of the vintage in her
new home. The presses were being trodden; the vats were
overflowing; women girt with skins were dancing, as Bacchanals
dance in their worship or their frenzy. Messalina with flowing hair
shook the thyrsus, and Silius at her side, crowned with ivy and
wearing the buskin, moved his head to some lascivious chorus.
(Ann. 11.31)
We have referred to this incident already when discussing a background to

Rom 7:2–3. Is Paul emphasising in this analogy and in other statements in
the letter that such kinds of unions and behaviour are as strongly condemned
by his version of Eastern Messianic Judaism as they are by Roman ethics?
Rather, Roman Christians are to “cast off the works of darkness and put on
the armour of light. Let us walk properly as in the daytime, not in orgies and
drunkenness, not in sexual immorality and sensuality, not in quarrelling and
jealousy” (Rom 13:12–13, ESV; see also Rom 1:24). 16
16
This statement is often read against the notorious behaviour of Roman elites. See, e.g., Jewett
(2007, 825): “The ethical antitheses that follow are primarily a reflection of the dangers of excesses
Our following analysis of the references to women in Romans will

keep this complex situation in mind and examine how the way in which Paul
refers to women can be understood against this background, together with
the other functions that these references to women have in the letter.
2 Women in Romans
Some references to women in Romans refer to women in general or abstract

ways, others to specific women, be they named or identified otherwise. 17
2.1 Romans 1:18–21
In Rom 1:18–21, Paul speaks of the human refusal to recognise God and his
being in his works. Rather than honouring and thanking God, which would
have been the appropriate reaction to divine revelation, they suppressed the
truth. As a consequence, “they became futile in their thinking, and their
foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools” (vv.
21–22, ESV). This refusal of the physical revelation of God and its physical
consequences in divine judgement become visible in relations contrary to
nature in all humanity. God gave the gentiles up to degrading passions. On
the general rhetorical function of vv. 26–28, Jewett (2007) notes:
To substantiate the claim in v. 26a concerning dishonorable

passions, Paul introduces with gar (“for”) the example of perverse
sexual relations. The exemplum (“example”) is a widely used
means of proof in Greco-Roman rhetoric, particularly suited for the
epideictic genre that concerns itself with praise and blame of
various types of behavior. The most effective examples are drawn
from everyday experience and derive their argumentative force
from shared opinion or prejudice. Here we have the most egregious
instance Paul can find to demonstrate his thesis about human
distortion, the arena of sexual perversity that created wide revulsion
in the Jewish and early Christian communities of his time. There
was also a widespread critique of effeminacy and homosexuality
among traditional Romans, who castigated “Greek” behavior and
found Nero objectionable in “dressing Greek” and publicly
expressing bisexual impulses. The depiction of a particularly
unpopular example for the sake of an effective argument leads Paul
associated with nocturnal feasting in the Greco-Roman world.” However, the statement is usually
not directly related to the Messalina incident. For a description of the immorality that this could
involve, see Weeber (2011, 61–84, 131–142).
17
On the second group, see MacDonald (1999, 199–220).
to highly prejudicial language, particularly to the modern ear. It

should be clear from the outset, however, that Paul’s aim is not to
prove the evils of perverse sexual behavior; that is simply assumed.
The aim is to develop a thesis about the manifestation of divine
wrath in the human experience of Paul’s time. In contrast to
traditional moralizing based on this passage, sexual perversion is in
Paul’s view the result of God’s wrath, not the reason for it.
(p. 173) 18
On his rhetorical way to the conclusion in Rom 3:9–18 that all are under the
dominion of sin, Paul emphasises that all people, women and men, are guilty
and affected by the consequences of their refusal vis-à-vis God. Of such
“degrading passions,” Paul adduces two examples: one female, one male.
Of these polytheists, Paul says that “their women exchanged natural
intercourse for unnatural intercourse” (Rom 1:26, my translation) before
moving to the men in more detail: “in the same way also the men, giving up
natural intercourse with women, were consumed with passion for one
another. Men committed shameless acts with men and received in their own
persons the due penalty for their error” (1:27–28). “There is a strikingly
egalitarian note in Paul’s treating same-sex intercourse among females as
an issue in its own right and holding women to the same level of
accountability as men” (Jewett 2007, 176; cf. Schnabel 2015, 235–240).19
It is noteworthy that Paul mentions female behaviour first and addresses it
less explicitly and in less detail than male homoeroticism.
Here we are only concerned with the statement regarding women.
Like Jewett and many other exegetes, Brooten (2000b, 468) argues that
v. 26 “most likely refers to sexual relations between women, because (1) in
Romans 1:27, Paul states that ‘in the same way also the men . . . were
consumed with passion for one another”; and (2) other ancient sources
(Plato, Seneca the Elder, Martial, Ovid, Ptolemy, Artemidoros, and
probably Dorotheos of Sidon) depict sexual relations between women as
unnatural” (see also Brooten 1996; Martin 1995). By mentioning female
behaviour first, it stands close to the introductory phrase “God gave them
up to degrading passions” (1:26), which is close to the introduction of the
18
For Jewett’s pertinent summary of Paul’s statements and nuanced evaluation from a
contemporary perspective, see Jewett (2007, 177).
19
On the possessive pronoun “their” in “their women,” Jewett (2007, 177) notes: “The inclusion
of αὐτῶν (“their”) is unexplained in the commentaries, but clearly implies a view that females
stand under the responsibility and jurisdiction of males. This view is typical of Greco-Roman and
Jewish sexual ethics. . . . Brooten (1996, 241) claims that the reference to their females ‘is a logical
term in male-dominated societies, in which women belong to men and are seen in relation to
them.’”
argument in Rom 1:24 and falls under the sweeping claims of divine wrath
in Rom 1:18. While perhaps not to the same extent and in the same explicit
way as with men, for Paul women are also affected by God giving people
up to dishonourable passions (1:26), which involves the exchange of natural
relations for those that are contrary to nature.
However, in recent discussions the common identification of the
“unnatural” intercourse of women with the homoeroticism of men treated in
the following verse has been questioned. Haacker (2012) notes:
As an example of disgraceful degeneracy to passions Paul mentions

in V. 26–27 the displacement of “natural” (and therefore ordained
by God) sexual intercourse by “unnatural” intercourse. . . . V. 27
speaks unambiguously of homosexual intercourse between men.
Because of this almost all expositors interpret V. 26 to mean a
similar intimate intercourse between women although the wording
is kept much more general. (p. 59) 20
Here we present in some detail Haacker’s challenge to this widespread

understanding, as it is representative of others. 21 He surveys OT and NT
references regarding male homoeroticism and concludes that Paul knows
himself to be in agreement with his addressees and a broad tradition. In
contrast, a condemnation of lesbian relationships is found for the first time
in Jewish sources in Pseudo-Phocylides (§192, late first century BCE or
early first century CE) and appears only rarely in rabbinic sources. Against
20
In a footnote, Haacker (2012, 59) continues: “P. Billerbeck, Kommentar zum NT etc. III, 68 f.
schlägt eine Deutung auf analen heterosexuellen Verkehr vor; die angeführten Quellen erörtern
jedoch nur die Frage, ob dem Mann diese Praxis erlaubt sei; Paulus spricht dagegen von einem
Fehlverhalten der Frauen. Miller (1995) notiert die sehr allgemeine Ausdrucksweise von V. 26, die
beim Lesen erst im Rückschluss aus V. 27 auf lesbische Liebe bezogen werden könnte (S. 11:
‘There is little reason to read Rom 1:26 as a reference to female homosexuality’); er denkt wie
Billerbeck an “unnatürlichen” (d. h. nichtvaginalen) heterosexuellen Verkehr, womöglich zum
Zwecke der Empfängnisverhütung.”
21
See the discussion of various proposals by Jewett (2007, 176) and Schnabel (2015, 235–238),
including a detailed refutation of Haacker’s argument presented above (pp. 237–238). For a survey
of the current discussion, see Murphy (2019), who presents further evidence for the older
interpretation that the women in view engage in non-procreative sex with men. Murphy (2019,
221) summarises his argument as follows: “First, when χρῆσις/χράομαι (‘use’) denotes a sex act,
its subject is the man, and the context involves penetration. It is doubtful that χρῆσις in Rom 1:26b
refers to female-female sex. Second, I cite three additional ancient writers who deem male-female
non-procreative sex ‘unnatural.’ Third, discrepant views among earlier Byzantine writers
(Anastasius, Arethas, and Greek redactors of Pseudo-Methodius’s Apocalypse) reinforce how the
female-female interpretation was not the prevailing one in the early centuries. Fourth, linguistic
features of Rom 1:27a more readily support the anal-oral interpretation than the female-female
interpretation.” On p. 222, Murphy lists the far-reaching implications of Rom 1:26 to current
debates, which indicate why this verse has received so much attention. He argues that Rom 1
charges males who “drop the natural sex act with females, do the unnatural act with females, and
indulge their lusts further in (unnatural) sex with males” (Murphy 2019, 239).
this background, the general wording in Rom 1:26 can hardly be explained
as an allusion to a well-known and accepted tradition. The statement rather
draws on the warning against intercourse with animals, which in Lev 18:23
follows immediately after the condemnation of intercourse between men
and which explicitly includes women. 22 According to Haacker (2012, 60),
the expression ὁμοίως at the beginning of v. 27 presupposes only a certain
extent of comparability of the named behaviours with the modern notion of
“homosexuality,” which should not be equated with the former. 23 This is
suggested by the similar link between Jude 6 and 7. Such a generic term “is
lacking both in Jewish law and in Greek and Roman writings of Paul’s time”
(Haacker 2012, 60, with reference to Debel 2009, 637; see Jewett 2007,
174–176). This means that whereas the gentile environment tended to
tolerate homoerotic relationships between men, but, in contrast, despised
erotic relationships between women (as is primarily indicated by the
negative image of Sappho), the early church and early Judaism seem to have
taken an opposite position by only making male homosexuality taboo.
Other scholars have suggested a range of other “unnatural” sexual
activities of women that could be implied here, or have suggested that this
text could refer to sexual activities between women and men, even wives
and husbands (cf. “their women”; see above), that do not lead to conception
and thus procreation, which would violate the “natural” function of
intercourse and thereby disobey the command to “be fruitful and multiply”
(Gen 1:26), which seems to be Paul’s concern. According to Murphy (2019,
236–237), “vaginal sex is what the males and females in Paul’s ‘archaeology
of idolatry’ abandon in common.” 24
For our quest, the precise nature of the failure of “their women”
should not be over-emphasised. For Paul, sexual activities that go against
“natural use,” that is, apart from or preventing conception, are indicative of
divine judgement and characterise humanity under the dominion of sin
(Rom 3:9).
22
Haacker (2012, 60 n. 70) adds the following evidence in a footnote: “Sanh 7,4: ‘Diese sind die,
welche gesteinigt werden: Wer . . . einer männlichen Person beiliegt oder einem Tier, und die Frau,
die ein Tier beiliegen läßt.’ Philo, Spec. Leg. 3,43 ff. unterstreicht die Notwendigkeit dieser
Warnung unter Hinweis auf die Sage von der Geburt des Minotaurus (vgl. u. a. Vergil, Aen. 6,24–
26). Auch Plut., Mor. 990D–991A verbindet die Themen ‘Verkehr zwischen Männern’ und
‘Verkehr mit Tieren’ miteinander und wertet beides als Verstoß gegen die Natur. Weitere Belege
für die Warnung vor Zoophilie bietet K.-W. Niebuhr, Gesetz und Paränese (1987).”
23
With reference to the flexible use and meaning of ὁμοίως, see Banister (2009). For a recent
assessment, see Murphy (2019, 235–236).
24
Murphy (2019, 240) argues that “[t]he stronger conclusion is that Paul’s females in Rom 1:26
are meant to be having non-vaginal sex with males.”
The reference to the behaviour of these women not only illustrates

Paul’s argument, but also has a particular rhetorical function. After his
trenchant criticism of idolatry, Paul condemns behaviour of women—
whatever its precise nature—that would also have been despised by Roman
moralists and legislation, at least for Roman wives or matronae (see
above). 25 Whatever the actual practice of Roman women may have been is
a different matter. Although Paul may have been slandered as lawless (see
above), he refutes such claims through his allusions to the law and its
condemnation of non-procreative sexual intercourse. In this way, Paul
indicates that he will not undermine morals during his upcoming visit.
2.2 Romans 4:19
While the focus in Rom 4 is clearly on Abraham and his faith, Rom 4:19
mentions Abraham’s wife Sarah: Abraham did not weaken in his faith,
“when he considered his own body, which was already as good as dead (for
he was about a hundred years old), or when he considered the barrenness of
Sarah’s womb.” In the words of Jewett (2007, 337): “As far as Abraham’s
and Sarah’s capacities to produce a child were concerned, he considered
them nothing less than dead.” Paul does not mention Sarah’s likewise
advanced age (in itself a good reason to doubt a pregnancy), but her
barrenness. 26 This reference adds to the portrayal of Abraham as trusting in
the divine promise against all human odds, that is, against the devastating
combination of his own (and their) advanced age and Sarah’s inability to
bear children. In contrast to the gentile women in Rom 1:26, the patriarch’s
wife appears in the role of the heterosexual, potential and eventual mother
to be.
In view of the Genesis narrative, it is noteworthy that neither Sarah’s
suggestion to Abraham that Hagar should bear the longed-for son, nor her
attitude (laughing at the announcement of the imminent fulfilment of the
25
Jewett (2007, 173) notes that traditional Romans castigated “Greek” behaviour and found Nero,
the Emperor at the time when Paul wrote to Christians in Rome, “objectionable in ‘dressing Greek’
and publicly expressing bisexual impulses” (see also Griffin 1984, 119, 160–166). Against this
backdrop, Paul’s references to male homosexuality in v. 27 could be understood as anti-imperial
polemic.
26
In Ant. 1.186, Josephus mentions Sarah’s barrenness: “Abraham . . . distressed at his wife’s
sterility, he besought God to grant him the birth of a male child.” In Ant. 1.213, Josephus refers to
Sarah’s advanced age, but does not mention her barrenness: “Not long after, Abraham, as God had
foretold him, had a son by Sarah, whom he called Isaac; the name means ‘laughter’ and was given
him by his father because Sarah had smiled when God said that she would give birth, child-bearing
at her advanced age being beyond her expectations; for she was then ninety years old and Abraham
a hundred” (italics added). Similarly, in Ant. 1.197–198: “Thereat the woman smiled and said that
child-bearing was impossible, seeing that she was ninety years old and her husband a hundred”
(italics added).
promise) are mentioned. However, these omissions, which present her in a

thoroughly positive light in Romans, should not be overestimated, since the
same also applies to the portrayal of Abraham’s faith. Romans does not
contain positive statements about Sarah, as can be found in Heb 11:11
(emphasis on her own faith and her trust in God’s faithfulness) and 1 Pet 3:6
(see Briggs 2000a, 152).
2.3 Romans 7:2–3
As an illustration of the principle that the law is binding on a person only

during that person’s lifetime (Rom 7:1), 27 Paul refers to the legal situation
of married women in submission to their husbands:
Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long

as he lives; but if her husband dies, she is discharged from the law
concerning the husband. Accordingly, she will be called an
adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive.
But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries
another man, she is not an adulteress. (Rom 7:2–3) 28
Here Paul takes the traditional status of wives as being in submission to their
husbands (ὕπανδρος γυνή) for granted. According to Jewett (2007, 431),
this adjective suggests that “the woman is understood solely in terms of her
husband as chattel who lacks power, rights or duty under the law.”
Haacker (2012, 168) notes biblical and early Jewish examples of the
trespass referred to in Rom 7:2–3. From the biblical tradition, the described
legal situation can be illustrated with the marriage of David with Abigail,
the wife of Nabal, once Nabal had died (1 Sam 25:39–42). The breach of
marital law described in v. 3a recalls the behaviour of Herodias (according
to Josephus, Ant. 18.109–110.136), when her marriage with Herod Antipas
came into being. According to Mark 6:18, John the Baptist protested against
this marriage. Josephus’s wording in Ant. 18.136 sounds like an echo of this
27
Haacker (2012, 167) notes: “Die Einleitung mit ‘Oder wisst ihr (etwa) nicht . . .?’ beansprucht
für das Folgende eine an Selbstverständlichkeit grenzende Plausibilität, was jedoch nur für das
herangezogene Beispiel aus dem Leben gelten kann, nicht aber für die Konsequenzen, die Paulus
aus dem Vergleich zieht.” On the passage, see Thimmes (2004, 190–203). Thimmes offers a critical
appraisal of the history of interpretation on pp. 192–196.
28
On the meaning of law, Haacker (2012, 167) notes: “Umstritten ist, ob νόμος hier die Torah
(oder wie in 3:19 die heiligen Schriften Israels im ganzen) oder das allgemeine, auch in der Umwelt
anerkannte Recht meint. Der in V. 2–3 besprochene Sachverhalt passt zu beiden Möglichkeiten,
weil die Polyandrie sowohl im Judentum als auch bei Griechen und Römern dem geltenden
Eherecht widersprach. Auffällig ist, dass Paulus die Möglichkeit einer legalen Ehescheidung
ignoriert.”
disapproval, when he states that in order to marry Herod Antipas, Herodias

separated herself from her “living husband.” Haacker also refers to the
Valeria Messalina incident (see above).
Against the background of these scandalous events, Paul’s references
to marriage, its validity until death, remarriage and adultery in Rom 7:2–3
can be read as affirming “traditional” Roman (and Jewish) values and ethics
(limiting the sexual activities of women regarding marriage) while
relativising “the law” in the context of the whole chapter at the same time. 29
Although the faith that Paul proclaimed, proclaims now and hopes to
proclaim soon in Rome (Rom 1:15) is firmly rooted in the East, and although
Paul is known (and slandered) for commenting critically on “the law,” his
proclamation does not subvert Roman social order and notions of marriage
as a number of religions that had come from the East to the imperial capital
had done or were perceived to have done. 30 This is significant in view of the
historical backdrop sketched above. While Paul propagates liberty from the
law (and later on praises the involvement of women in mission activities,
16:1–15), he is not a libertinist. Despite Paul’s radical abrogation of the
validity of the law with regard to gentile Christians, he will not undermine
morals during his impending stay in Rome. His ministry will not endanger
the precarious situation of the city’s Christian communities.
However, Paul’s analogy also points to something else. From this
analogy of the law and the limits of its validity, Paul draws conclusions
regarding the obligation of the Jewish law for Christians and the termination
of this obligation through participation in the death and resurrection of
29
Thimmes (2004, 198) notes that “marriage is a familiar image that could represent and reflect a
host of cultural and political connections like interpersonal relationships, obligations,
commitments, monogamy, legal affairs, children and family.” She argues that “Paul’s use of the
marriage/adultery analogy portrays him as a pater familias who negotiates relationships within the
community” (pp. 199–200), and draws attention to the fact that “[b]eneath Paul’s example is an
understanding of marriage as both religious and cultural construct, with implicit group values and
social codes” (pp. 200–201, explained in some detail on p. 201). She argues that underlying Paul’s
analogy “are issues of possession and freedom” (p. 201). “In affirming the traditional role of the
husband as pater familias, negotiating and governing relationships for and with the women in his
life, most notably his wife, Paul’s teaching using the analogy of marriage and adultery is embedded
in the language of property and ownership/possession” (pp. 202–203). Regarding the function of
Rom 7:2–3, Thimmes (2004, 201) notes that “ὕπανδρος, in common parlance, does mean ‘under a
man’ and ‘legally bound to a man.’ There is no parallel Greek construction to ἡ ὕπανδρος γυνή,
nor does the phrase ὁ ὑπογυναικὸς ἀνήρ appear in Greek literature. Marriage linguistically does
not simply imply ownership of a wife by her husband, it legally enforces it. Paul, by using marriage
as the subject of his analogy, makes his point regarding the law using an example that reinscribes
gender hierarchy in the community. In this way, Paul’s teaching insured that marriage (and gender)
would remain a boundary issue in Christian communities. Boundaries are erected to exert control,
to establish status, and marriage was an example of ultimate control: women’s dress, public role,
biology (menstrual taboos), and legal status were all governed through marriage.”
30
For a survey of religions from the East present in Rome during the reign of Claudius, see Alvarez-
Cineira (1999, 117–159).
Jesus: “In the same way, brothers, you have died to the law through the body
of Christ . . .” (Rom 7:4, my translation). Paul chose this example from the
law because it explicitly refers to the death of one of the parties involved.
According to Briggs (2000b), the perceived passivity of the married woman
is the crux of the analogy:
Paul’s argument rests on the assumption that, according to Jewish

law, a woman had no right to terminate her marriage through
divorce. (Recent scholarship, though, suggests that Jewish women
may sometimes have had the legal right to initiate divorce
proceedings). As Paul presents it, the married woman has no legal
means to seek out another relationship while her husband lives, but
can only commit adultery if she tries.
Paul appears to have chosen this analogy to address listeners
among the audience of Romans who were knowledgeable about
Jewish law because it underscores his argument about the
helplessness of a person under Jewish law. It also indicates that Paul
thought the obvious subjection of a wife to her husband would make
a compelling vehicle for his theological argument. (p. 469; see also
Instone-Brewer 2010)
On the one hand, Paul’s aim of showing the obligation of the law until it is
properly terminated (in this case, by the death of the husband; the option of
a divorce is not in view in Paul’s argument) explains why the legal status of
the woman is described in this passive and, to follow Briggs, helpless
manner (“subjection of a wife to her husband”). On the other hand, if the
analogy indicates that the woman is free to act as she pleases once the
obligation of the law has come to an end, the woman of Paul’s analogy
becomes a role model for people who are no longer under the obligation of
the law and who may now live in freedom. Jewett (2007, 432) observes that
although “Paul’s use of a traditional Jewish view or marriage could be
understood as an example that reinscribed gender hierarchy in the
community, 31 his intent was to support freedom from the law that pertained
to all believers” (italics added).
However, the marriage analogy applies not only to the recipients’
past relationship with the law and to the freedom that they now enjoy, but
also to their new status. Jewett (2007) goes on to note that the new
relationship created by the grace of Christ is also expressed in the same
31
So the claim of Thimmes (2004, 201).
marital language that appeared in the premises of the syllogism “so you can
have relations with another . . .”:
Rather than being wedded, body and soul, to the all encompassing
system of competition for honor, believers are now wedded to
Christ. This is a stunning metaphor for religious transformation,
reflecting the theme of psychosexual unity between believers and
Christ that appeared in 1 Cor 6:13–20. While it remains unclear
why Paul chose to stress this somatic relationship in the context of
the Roman letter . . . there is no doubt that Paul is using a marital
metaphor to describe the relation between believers and Christ. The
same conception is found also in 2 Cor 11:2. There are precedents
in the OT for speaking of the relationship between God and Israel
in marital terms (Isa 54:5–6; 62:4–5; Jer 2:2; 3:14; Ezek 16:7–8;
Hos 1:2; 2:19), but the Pauline writings are the only NT documents
to apply the concept to the relationship of believers. . . . The
implications are clear and straightforward. . . . The relationship
between believers and Christ established by the death of Christ is
as totally encompassing as the relationship between a husband and
wife. It is a distinctive form of physical mysticism in which mind,
heart, spirit, and other “spiritual dimensions” of the human psyche
are completely integrated with physical, sexual dimensions. That
Christ is the partner in the new Christian marriage between
believers and their Lord is confirmed by Paul’s explanatory
clause . . . (“with the one raised from [the] dead”). . . . So to be
married to the resurrected one, which goes a step farther than 6:4,
where only union with Christ’s death was claimed, constitutes the
epitome of being freed from the law. (pp. 434–435) 32
It has become clear that an assertion that draws on some traditional values
with regard to wives and regulates female sexuality also has the potential to
point to a different reality and to different tasks ahead.
32
Jewett (2007, 435) goes on to note that Paul’s statement of purpose “in order that we may bear
fruit for God” at the end of v. 4 means a “figurative form of productivity in a general sense
including childbearing. . . . the believer is free to contract a new union with his Risen Lord, and
obtain new progeny through this fresh marriage.” Jewett (2007, 435) argues that fruit/children must
be seen in relation with Paul’s impending mission to Spain with the support of the Roman
Christians: “Paul places the purpose of their joint marriage with Christ in the first person plural,
because he hopes to join with the Roman churches in planning and mounting this mission to bear
God further fruit of converts . . . If the house and tenement churches of Rome could grasp the true
dimension of their marriage to Christ, they would be enabled to share in Paul s mission to restore
‘to God’ his rightful children in Spain, thus completing the task of bringing the Gentiles as an
offering to God (Rom 15:16), which Isaiah had hoped would usher in the end of the age (Isa
66:20).”
2.4 Romans 8:22
In Rom 8:22, Paul asserts that “the whole creation has been groaning in
labor pains until now.” A number of family terms appear in the context:
“children of God” (8:19, 21), “adoption” (8:23) and Jesus as the firstborn
(πρωτότοκος) within a large family (8:29). With the female metaphor
“groaning in labor pains,” 33 an experience in which the whole creation
shares, Paul again alludes to women in the context of giving birth to children
(as in 4:19). 34 With his reference to the joint groaning and travailing of all
of creation, Paul does not focus on the dire experiences of women during
childbirth (as does Gen 3:16, for instance), but on what lies beyond the birth
process. Williams (1999) comments:
In Romans 8:18–25, the focus of the metaphor is on what lies

beyond the pain of birth, again referring to Christ’s return. He will
bring with him the “final installment” of our salvation, “the
redemption of our bodies”—new bodies to match the new life that
we already have. But, for the present, nature itself seems to be
yearning, just as we are, for that moment. “The whole creation,” in
Paul’s words, “is crying with one voice” for an end to its present
labor, for a quick delivery, for the birth of God’s new creation from
the womb of the old. (p. 57, italics added) 35
2.5 Romans 9:9–12
In Rom 9, Paul returns to important women of Israel’s past. Sarah, already

mentioned in Rom 4:19, appears again in Rom 9:9, where Paul identifies
her as the mother of the “children of promise” who, in Paul’s argument,
function as a guarantee of the faithfulness of God to his promises (11:29).36
33
For a survey of biblical and Greco-Roman examples, see Jewett (2007, 517).
34
For the larger context in Romans, see Stenschke (2017).
35
Haacker (2012, 203) notes: “Das Bild von den ‘Wehen’ impliziert freilich, dass die Zeit des
Wartens sich—unter Schmerzen—dem Ende zuneigt, und in V. 23 ist auch das Bild vom Geist als
der ‘ersten Frucht’ ein Ausdruck der Naherwartung.” Two further instances in Romans need brief
attention. There is a female pronoun in the Hosea quotation in Rom 9:25 referring to Israel: “and
her who was not beloved I will call ‘beloved,’” quoting Hos 2:23 and 1:10 (2:25 and 2:1) in the
context of marriage. For detailed analysis, see Jewett (2007, 599–601). The metaphor in Paul’s
quotation of Isa 65:1–2 in Rom 10:21 could be seen as a maternal or paternal metaphor: “All day
long I have held out my hands to a disobedient and contrary people.” However, the gesture in view
is not limited to mothers or parents, but a more general “gesture of appealing welcome and
fellowship” (Jewett 2007, 649). Additionally, in the original Isaianic context and in Paul’s context,
the reference is to God’s activity. This suggests that for Paul this parental metaphor is probably
paternal, rather than maternal. For a survey of Paul’s parenting metaphors, see Williams (1999,
58–59).
36
Jewett (2007, 577) summarises this part of the argument as follows: “It confirms through Hebrew
Scripture that Israel’s election as sons or children of God had always depended not on natural
Paul argues that not all of Abraham’s children were his true descendants;
but “[i]t is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.” Not the
children “of the flesh” are the children of God, but the children of the
promise are counted as descendants (9:7–8). Then, quoting Gen 18:10, Paul
recalls the divine promise: “For this is what the promise said, ‘About this
time I will return and Sarah shall have a son’” (Rom 9:9, italics added).
Otherwise, Sarah is not mentioned. Also here, Paul does not mention her
offer of Hagar to Abraham in Gen 16:1–2, or her laughter at the
announcement of the imminent fulfilment of the promise in Gen 18:9–16,
which the Genesis account evaluates negatively.
Briggs (2000a, 152) notes: “Here and in the Hagar-Sarah allegory of
Galatians 4:21–31, the motherhood of Sarah (there referred to not only by
name, but as the ‘free woman’) becomes the symbol of authentic descent
from Abraham.” In comparison with Gal 4, Briggs (2000a, 152) argues: “In
Romans 9 the focus has shifted more to the descendants, to Sarah’s son Isaac
and especially Isaac’s two sons, Jacob and Esau. Isaac’s two sons replace
Abraham’s two wives as the figures of true and merely physical descent
from Abraham.” Here, Sarah merely appears in her role as mother.
Paul sees a similar principle—children of promise, of divine
selection, as the true descendants 37—also at work in the next generation,
with the descendants of Isaac and Rebekah: “Nor is that all; something
similar happened to Rebekah when she had conceived children by one
husband, our ancestor Isaac. Even before they had been born or had done
anything good or bad . . . she was told, ‘The elder shall serve the younger’”
(Rom 9:11–12; quoting from Gen 25:21, 23). Van der Horst (2000) suggests
that Paul
. . . exemplifies this principle further by arguing that it is not only

valid in the case of two different mothers (Sarah and Hagar), but
also in the case of one, 38 referring to the fact that something similar
happened to Rebekah, “when she had conceived children by one
husband, our ancestor Isaac,” for even before the twins Esau and
Jacob were born, she was told by God: “the elder shall serve the
descent but on a selective divine promise. God is confirmed in this verse as the reliable one who
comes to make the word of promise come true, thus addressing the issue in v. 6 as to whether ‘the
word of God has fallen short.’”
37
Jewett (2007, 577) comments: “The divine word rather than physical lineage determines the heir
of the promise.”
38
Similarly, Haacker (2012, 232): “dass es um zwei Söhne eines und desselben Elternpaares geht
(während Abraham Kinder von verschiedenen Frauen hatte . . .”
younger” (Gen 25:23). So only Jacob is heir to the promise. (pp.

144–145)
In Paul’s abbreviated version of the Genesis account, Rebekah takes centre

stage, while Isaac remains in the background as the progenitor. The
revelation of the divine election and purpose was given to Rebekah. She is
the recipient of divine revelation: as she bore the children, she received the
divine instruction. Why this was the case is not mentioned in Rom 9.
Genesis narrates that the revelation of God’s purpose was granted to
Rebekah because she specifically “went to inquire of the Lord” (Gen 25:22–
23). In both Genesis and Romans, Rebekah is not reduced to her role as
mother of the child of promise, but receives a revelation from God. 39 Paul
also does not mention her barrenness (as in Gen 25:21) and Isaac’s
intercessory prayer for her. In the Genesis account, Isaac has an active role,
in contrast to Paul’s brief reference to the events surrounding the birth of
Jacob and Esau.
In Paul’s argument about the children of promise and the faithfulness
of God, the patriarchal wives Sarah and Rebekah have important functions.
Despite the insurmountable challenges mentioned in Rom 4 (barrenness and
advanced age), Sarah eventually gave birth to the son of divine promise and
had to do so. Thus, she confirmed the faithfulness of God and Abraham’s
trust in his promises. Her body becomes the location of an important
miracle, an act of creation, which for Paul demonstrates the very nature of
God (Rom 9) and of Christian faith (Rom 4). Paul does not mention Sarah’s
beauty or other features (Gen 12:14–15), but focuses on her inability to have
children (4:19; see Gen 11:30, where barrenness is the first trait mentioned
about her) and the announcement of her later pregnancy (9:9).
More than the fact of her bearing two sons is said about Rebekah.
While only mentioned indirectly (passivum divinum) and in passing (“she
was told”), her inquiry of the Lord regarding the children (where she took
the initiative) is alluded to, and the divine revelation that she received
regarding the one child of promise is also mentioned. God spoke to her; she
was told by him. This makes more of her than simply a concerned mother.
Paul does not mention her later dealings with her husband Isaac in order to
39
In Ant. 1.257–258, Josephus alters the Genesis account to give Isaac an active role, while
Rebekah is fully in the background: “Now after Abraham’s death Isaac’s young wife conceived,
and seeing her inordinately big with child her husband anxiously consulted God. And He told him
that Rebekah would give birth to twins, that two nations would bear their names, and that he, that
to appearance was the lesser, would excel the greater” (italics added).
help the divine announcement come to pass that the older would serve the
younger (narrated in Gen 27). 40
Both Sarah and Rebekah appear in traditional roles as patriarchal
wives and mothers, which would also have been in accordance with Roman
mores and imperial legislation in the first century. Although not without
serious challenges, Sarah and Rebekah eventually fulfilled their maternal
roles. The portraits here painted of these matriarchs show once more that
despite the implications of Paul’s praise of women in the context of his
missionary endeavour in Rom 16, Paul will not undermine Roman mores in
this regard (see Rom 7:2–3). Whatever Paul’s “reputation,” the Christians
of Rome need not fear his visit and ministry among them. However, in
Paul’s brief reference, Rebekah receives a revelation regarding the unusual
divine choice of the younger over against the older son. This is a strong
pointer that women have a status and a role to play that are not restricted to
motherhood.
2.6 Romans 16
Romans 16 contains a variety of references to women. In contrast to the

previous abstract/general references to women, these women do not
illustrate the deviant sexual behaviour (1:26) of gentiles, appear in
traditional roles (4:19; 9:9) or display the traditional behaviour (7:2–3) of
women under the law. Rather, these concrete/specific named and unnamed
Christian women appear in new roles and are praised for their involvement
in Christian communities and mission enterprises. Of the women mentioned
in Romans prior to ch. 16, only Rebekah, as a recipient of revelation (9:12),
comes close to this group.
This new and different perspective on women does not come as a
surprise in view of Rom 1–15. The maximalist approach to our subject,
described in the introduction above, would rightly underscore that women
are included on equal terms throughout the argument of the letter: they are
included in humanity’s state under the dominion of sin, in justification by
faith, in sharing the faith of Abraham as recipients of divine love and the
glory to come, and in their identification with Christ and the newness of life
as bearers of the Spirit, as recipients of tremendous promises, as members
of Christian communities, as bearers of charismatic gifts, and as people
called to tolerance and a life characterised by righteousness, peace and joy
40
At the same time, there is a moment of subversion. Vis-à-vis the claims of Rome, Paul leaves no
doubt that Abraham and his descendants, including the wives, are the people chosen by God, not
Rome, including its imperial and senatorial clans. For a detailed argument, see Stenschke (2012).
in the Holy Spirit. With the many named Christians in Rom 16, their new
existence and practice become tangible. What appears here is what one
would expect in view of Rom 1–15.
2.6.1 Romans 16:1–2
In Rom 16:1–2, Paul announces Phoebe’s coming to Rome. Phoebe is said
to serve as a διάκονος of the church in Cenchreae (for the place and the
founding of the church there, see Jewett 2007, 943). Jewett (2007, 944)
concludes: “On the basis of Paul’s references to such a church in Romans
16:1, we must assume that it was a church in Phoebe’s residence that had
been founded by Paul or his colleagues operating out of Corinth sometime
between Paul’s arrival at the centre in 50 CE and the writing of Romans in
56–57.”
Jewett (2007) summarises the development of the scholarly
discussion regarding the significance of the title and activities of a διάκονος
as follows:
Although earlier commentaries interpret the term διάκονος as a

subordinate role, it now appears more likely that she functioned as
the leader of the congregation. That διάκονος was an official title
of leadership has been shown by Brockhaus and Holmberg, and is
strongly indicated by earlier references in Rom 11:13; 12:7; and
13:4. In the light of its use in 1 Cor 3:5; 2 Cor 3:6; 6:4; 11:15 and
23 to refer to missionaries, including Paul himself, it is no longer
plausible to limit her role to philanthropic activities. Fiorenza
contends that the “diakonos, like the synergos, therefore, is a
missionary entrusted with preaching and tending churches. . . . It
can be concluded, therefore, that Phoebe is recommended as an
official teacher and missionary in the church of Kenchreia.”
However, in the light of the possessive qualification, “deacon of the
church in Kenchreia,” it seems more likely that she functioned as a
local leader rather than a travelling missionary. (p. 944) 41
While not excluding activities elsewhere, Jewett’s focus is on Phoebe’s

activities in her own community. In her comprehensive examination of the
41
With reference to Schüssler-Fiorenza (1983, 171). See also Schnabel (2016, 858–859), who is
more cautious: “Eine Leitungsfunktion in der Gemeinde, die manche aus der Bezeichnung
διάκονος für Phöbe ablesen, ist möglich, aber nicht zwingend, es sei denn, dass man jede geistliche
Mitarbeit und alle Verkündigungstätigkeit im Sinne einer ‘Leitungsfunktion’ interpretiert. Wir
haben keine Einzelheiten über die Art der Mitarbeit Phöbes, die es erlauben würden von einer
Leitungsfunktion zu sprechen.” For a survey of different interpretations, see Mathew (2013, 71–
74).
diakon-wordgroup, Hentschel (2007, 172) emphasises that the concept

implies being officially commissioned for a certain task and receiving the
authority to execute it, be it locally or elsewhere. Thus, Phoebe should be
understood as an “official representative and envoy of this church” (on Rom
16:1–2, see pp. 167–172). Regarding Phoebe’s designation as a διάκονος of
the church in Cenchreae, Hentschel (2007) concludes:
At the least, this formulation suggests that the activities planned by

her in Rome lie within the Christian-ecclesial context and that she
is on her way on behalf of her home-church in Cenchreae as a
person with authority. . . . In any case, the formal context of a letter
or recommendation is to be taken as a clear indication that the noun
διάκονος points to a respected and important commissioning of
Phoebe in an ecclesial context. In addition, this use of the verbal
noun is a proof, that Paul and also the churches under consideration
could use this designation without limitations for women, who held
a position of church leadership which involved authority and high
standing and also exercised positions of teaching and proclamation.
(p. 172)
Next to whatever important tasks Phoebe would have fulfilled within the
community of Cenchreae, this observation opens up new perspectives for
Phoebe’s ministry beyond the confines of her community and possible
mission engagement. Two scenarios are possible, although not mutually
exclusive:
 If the statement of Phoebe as διάκονος in this sense is taken at face

value, Paul could have requested or even arranged Phoebe’s official
commissioning by the church as a woman of some standing to deliver
the letter to Rome. In this way, her coming would not be a private
enterprise by her and Paul, but would have had the approval and
support of an entire Christian community, even if it was a community
otherwise unknown (why not Corinth?). This commission would also
serve as an example of what Paul expects for himself from the Roman
communities regarding his upcoming mission in Spain (see Rom
15:24).
 It is also possible that Phoebe had been commissioned by her church
to travel to Rome for other reasons. Paul would simply make use of the
opportunity of her journey and ask her to take the letter along. This
would explain why the letter was given to an otherwise unknown
person from a likewise unknown church and not to one of Paul’s long
term co-workers, as might be expected. In this case, it is unknown what
the precise task was that the community in Cenchreae wanted her to
accomplish in Rome (see Hentschel 2007, 171–172). 42 If διάκονος
only serves to highlight Phoebe’s role in Cenchreae, then her journey
to Rome could also have been of a purely private nature. 43
Paul wholeheartedly recommends Phoebe to the Christians in Rome: “that

you may welcome her in the Lord as is fitting for the saints, and help her in
whatever she may require from you” (16:2). Probably Phoebe carried the
letter and in that function was authorised to explain to the recipients what
was not clear in the letter (see Phil 2:25–30; Col 4:7–9; cf. Bassler 2000d,
135). 44
Paul expects of the Romans that they welcome and accept Phoebe “in
the Lord as is fitting for the saints”; there seems to be one standard for all
Christians. 45 In addition, Paul demands that they help her in whatever she
might require from them. In doing so, she has the authority of the apostle
behind her. From Paul’s perspective, Phoebe receives a carte blanche.
As a reason for this request, Paul informs the Roman Christians of
Phoebe’s own exceptional generosity, even towards himself: “for she has
been a benefactor [or patron] of many and of myself as well” (16:2). Like
διάκονος, προστάτις denotes an important position and role in the
community. Recent studies of the archaeological and cultural evidence
confirm the “leading role played by upper-class benefactors, both male and
female, in early Christian communities” (Jewett 2007, 947) and provide the
background for the description of Phoebe’s status:
42
Bassler (2000d, 135) discusses possible purposes for Phoebe’s coming. She notes that “Jewett
has suggested that she had been sent ahead by Paul to begin the complex arrangements for his
mission to Spain, though Paul’s comments are far too terse to confirm this hypothesis,” with
reference to Jewett’s essay (1988, 142–161). See also the summary in Jewett’s commentary (2007,
942–948).
43
Pilhofer (2002, 209–211) emphasises the economic attractiveness of Christian communities and
of their potential use for business contacts for believers from other communities.
44
For a detailed description of the significance and function of letter carriers, see Richards (2004,
171–209). Tamez (2003, 558) writes: “Hinzu kommt, dass in jener Zeit die Briefe, die eine
Empfehlung des Überbringers oder der Überbringerin enthalten, damit zu verstehen geben, dass
dieser oder diese den Inhalt beherrschten und falls nötig erklären können.” At the time of reading
the letter, “Phöbe wird anwesend sein, um Zweifel und Fragen zum Inhalt zu klären.” See also
Hentschel (2007, 171). If Jewett is right, it would imply great confidence by Paul in Phoebe and
authority on her behalf.
45
For hospitality, see Gorce (1972). For the Hellenistic-Roman world, see Hiltbrunner (1972;
2005) and Arterbury (2005). On ancient guest houses and their dubious reputation and standards,
see also Heinz (2003), Hezser (2011) and Weeber (2011, 19–42).
The host or hostess of house churches was usually a person of high

social standing and means, with a residence large enough for the
church to gather, who presided over the eucharistic celebrations and
was responsible for the ordering of the congregation. The fact that
Paul mentions Phoebe as a patroness “to many, and also to me”
indicates the level of material resources that would support this
kind of leadership role. In light of her high social standing, and
Paul’s relatively subordinate social position as her client, it is
mistaken to render προστάτις as “helper” or to infer some kind of
subordinate role. 46 (ibid.)
The information that Paul shares about her indicates Phoebe’s status in her
home church and serves to motivate the readers to treat her accordingly:
what Phoebe had done for the Christians of Cenchreae, 47 whether they were
residents there or travelling through (as Paul had probably done on several
occasions; see Phlm 22), she should also be able to expect from Christians
in another place. 48
46
A number of recent studies have rightly questioned the assumptions that the house churches of
early Christianity simply followed the household structure and model of the ancient world (see,
e.g., Adams 2013).
47
Hentschel (2007, 168–169) goes further than Jewett in describing Phoebe’s role as προστάτις
based on the use of the term in ancient associations: “Dies ist ein Terminus mit einem juristischen
Inhalt. Es ist ein Ehren-und Autoritätstitel in der Antike und bezieht sich auf Personen, denen
andere sich unterordnen. Sie wird somit als eine relativ wohlhabende Frau in der griechisch-
römischen Gesellschaft beschrieben, die in der Gemeinde und sogar für Paulus eine
hervorgehobene, mit Autorität und Einfluss verbundene Position innehat. Es ist davon auszugehen,
dass Phoebe in Kenchreae ein Haus hatte, das sie der Gemeinde als Versammlungsort zur
Verfügung stellte. Als mögliche Aufgabengebiete sind die finanzielle, materielle sowie rechtliche
Unterstützung der Gemeindeglieder und die Gastfreundschaft für Missionare zu nennen. Als
Hausvorstand wird sie aber ebenso Leitungsfunktionen, z. B. im Rahmen der Versammlungen oder
Mahlzeiten, ausgeübt haben. Damit würde ihre Rolle dem eines Patrons oder Patronin in
denjenigen Vereinen entsprechen, die sich in Haushalten konstituieren. Während üblicherwiese der
Patron kein eigentliches Mitglied im Verein ist, gilt für diese Form, dass der Hausherrr bzw. die
Hausherrin in das Vereinsleben integriert ist und in diesem Rahmen auch Leitungsfunktionen
übernimmt. Dies ist auch für frühchristliche Hausgemeinden anzunehmen und für Phoebe durchaus
vorstellbar.” However, Hentschel (2007, 170) also rightly cautions: “Dennoch wird man das
Patronatssystem der Antike nicht unverändert für die Situation der Gemeinden annehmen dürfen,
denn das neue Ethos unter Christen als gleichermaßen in der Taufe von Gott angenommene und
erlöste Menschen enthält ein egalitäres Potential (Gal 3:28), das zu einer Hinterfragung und
Veränderung patriarchaler und hierarchischer Strukturen führen konnte. . . . Es ist naheliegend,
dass höhergestellte Gemeindeglieder beiderlei Geschlechts selbstverständlich ihre soziale,
materielle und auch rechtliche Unterstützung in die Gemeinschaft einbrachten und sich daraus mit
der Zeit amtliche Strukturen entwickeln konnten. Die Erwähnung der Phoebe in Röm 16:1–2 unter
Benutzung verschiedener mit Autoritätspositionen zu identifizierender Titel ist als ein Beleg zu
bewerten, dass Frauen zur Zeit des Paulus grundsätzlich alle Positionen innerhalb der Gemeinden
besetzen konnten.”
48
The commendation of Phoebe recalls other passages from the Corpus Paulinum that recommend
co-workers, report on their state and current circumstances, announce their coming and request
acceptance, hospitality and support for them (see Ollrog 1979; Dickson 2003, 86–94, 133–152).
In contrast to the portrayal of women so far in the letter, Phoebe does

not appear in a maternal role, but as an important office bearer in the
Christian community (διάκονος) and as an independent woman of some
social status and financial means (προστάτις) who probably exercised
authority. As a newcomer and foreigner, she will need assistance in Rome.
Otherwise, she is not a weak person in need of help or male patronage.
Rather, she provided both to women and men in Cenchreae. Her care and
resources were not aimed at her children, but towards her sisters and
brothers in the faith. With this role and these activities, she is wholehearted-
ly recommended.
2.6.2 Romans 16:3–15
In the detailed list of greetings in Rom 16:3–15, more men and women are
named than in any other passage in Paul’s letters. The list draws a vivid
portrayal of individual Christians. Of the twenty-eight persons that are either
mentioned by name or remain unnamed, nine are women (Prisca, Mary,
Junia, Tryphaena, Tryphosa, Persis, the mother of Rufus, Julia, the sister of
Nereus; see MacDonald 1999, 207–211). This list is the strongest
appreciation of women anywhere in Pauline literature.
Lampe (1989, 136) observes that the ratio between men and women
changes when one takes into account which persons Paul presents as active
in the communities. After gathering Paul’s comments together, Lampe
(1989, 137) suggests that there is a ratio of six to six, but perhaps even of
five to four in favour of the women. This would even grow to seven to five
(resp. six to three) in favour of the women if Junia(s) were also a woman
(which is the scholarly consensus today; see below). For Lampe (1989), the
active participation of women in the life of the church is established through
three further observations:
(a) κοπιάω is used four times exclusively of the women, not once
with regard to a man. (b) The activities mentioned of the men
Andronicus and Urbanus, acknowledged by Paul, appear to refer
more to their oriental past than to a role in the Roman church in the
present time (συναιχμάλωτοι μου, ἡμῶν); in contrast, the woman
Mary is explicitly acknowledged for her merits for her own Roman
congregation (εἰς ὑμᾶς). (c) With the couple Prisca and Aquila the
wife is mentioned before her husband (v. 3), in the same manner as
in 2 Tim 4:19; Acts 18:18, 26. The reverse sequence merely appears
1 Cor 16:19 (cf. Acts 18:2). Apparently, and in particular as it
concerned their ecclesial activities, Prisca was more prominent.
(p. 137)
For many of these women, Paul adds some additional information indicating
their merits and his cordial relationship with them. We start with the named
women.
Prisca (16:3–4): Of particular prominence among the women
mentioned in Rom 16 is this very mobile colleague and co-worker of Paul.49
Due to an edict by Claudius, Prisca and her husband Aquila had come from
Rome to Corinth in 49 CE (Acts 18:2–3). 50 According to Acts 18:19, the
couple later stayed behind in Ephesus (see Keener 2014, 2789–2793; cf. also
1 Cor 16:19). Romans 16:3 indicates that they had returned to Rome at some
point after the death of Claudius in the autumn of 54 CE. Second Timothy
4:19 suggests that they returned to Ephesus at a later point (see Eißler 2003;
Marshall and Towner 1999, 828; Towner 2006, 650–651). Prisca was an
active and influential member 51 of at least three early Christian churches.
And it is noteworthy that “Aquila is unique in the NT in that whenever he is
named, his wife is named too . . . It is most improbable that she would have
been mentioned so frequently by name if she had not been an outstanding
person in her own right” (Barrett 1998, 861).
In Rom 16, their names occur first in this detailed list. By sequence
and detail, Prisca and Aquila are given prominence over all the others also
praised by Paul. Paul says that both Prisca and Aquila are his co-workers in
Christ Jesus (16:3). 52 Cranfield (1979) notes that the emphasis on working
together is a characteristic of this list of greetings (16:6, 9, 12):
For Paul, being a Christian involves being set to work, an active

and responsible participation on the part of the believer in the work
49
She is called Priscilla in Acts and Prisca in the Pauline epistles. For a discussion on the couple,
see Alvarez-Cineira (1999, 217–224), Keener (2014, 2711–2729), Köstenberger (2000, 227–228),
MacDonald (1999, 202–204) and Richter Reimer (1995, 195–226).
50
See the detailed discussion in Keener (2014, 2697–2722). For an analysis of the perspective of
Acts on women and gender, see Keener (2012, 597–638).
51
Cf. Acts 18:26. For her instruction of Apollos, see Keener (2014, 2808–2811).
52
On the notion of co-workers, see Akasheh (2000), Cranfield (1979, 784–785), Drews (2006),
Ellis (1993) and Ollrog (1979). MacDonald (1999, 203) and others have rightly drawn attention to
the fact that Prisca is named first: “As is the case with the other missionary pairings of man and
women mentioned in Paul’s letters, there is no indication whatsoever of the female partner having
a different or diminished role in relation to the male partner. Both Prisca and Aquila are called
Paul’s coworkers . . . Both play a vital role in the expansion of the mission. The language that Paul
uses to greet them in Rom 16:3–5, including the reference to them having risked their necks in his
behalf and on behalf of others, is the language of the perils of mission.” See also p. 204: “. . . this
is probably a sign that she was of higher status than Aquila since the usual practice in antiquity
was to mention the man’s name first. . . . Taken together, the fact that Prisca may have been
perceived as having a higher social status than Aquila and that much of her leadership would have
been exercised in a household setting means that there is good reason to believe that her influence
in Pauline Christianity extended even beyond that of her partner” (italics added).
of the gospel (that “work” here has a particular reference to

missionary activity and those other activities which are directly
ancillary to it is, no doubt, true: at the same time it must be said that
too rigid a distinction ought not to be drawn between the Christian’s
missionary work and the rest of his work of obedience, in view of
the fact that every part of his obedience contributes to his witness
to the gospel). (pp. 784–785) 53
Paul does not distinguish between Prisca’s and Aquila’s contributions and
merits. In addition, Paul writes that Prisca and Aquila at some point risked
their necks for his life (Rom 16:4). We do not have additional information
about the dramatic event (or series of events) that Paul refers to here, but it
was probably linked to Paul’s missionary enterprise. It is clear that it
involved both Prisca and Aquila. Paul’s note indicates his great appreciation
for both of them and the readiness of both to be associated with Paul and his
mission and to face dire consequences.
Regarding Prisca, it is furthermore noteworthy that not only Paul and
the Roman Christians, but also “all the churches of the gentiles” know and
give thanks to God for Prisca and Aquila, who were at the time of writing
in Rome. 54 Although hyperbolic, the reference to “all the churches among
the gentiles” implies that the couple was widely known among the gentile
Christian churches (within the sphere of Paul’s mission, but probably also
beyond), even without belonging to the more narrow circle of Paul’s co-
workers.
According to Rom 16:5, a group of believers in Rome gathered
(probably with some regularity) at Prisca and Aquila’s οἴκος (see Jewett
2007, 958–959). We do not know in detail what this involved (cf. 16:10–
11, 16). Probably one or both of them served in some leadership function or
in teaching the believers. According to Jewett (2007), the couple led the
congregation. He points to the special character of this gathering:
The fact that this congregation meets in the house of Prisca and
Aquila has a significant social implication, that this congregation
was probably marked by what Ernst Troelsch and Gerd Theissen
have identified as “love patriarchalism” that accepted the hierarchal
53
On their designation as co-workers in Christ, Cranfield (1979, 785) notes: “. . . and the thought
that it is on the basis of God’s decision to see them in Christ . . . that Paul and Prisca and Aquila
have all alike been claimed as Christ’s and set free to work for him.” MacDonald (1999, 207)
writes: “The text is full of verbs that speak of risk and labor; these individuals clearly participated
in many precarious activities for the sake of the gospel.”
54
For a detailed treatment of Prisca and Aquila, see Stenschke (2009, 160–168) and Müller (2008).
structure of the Greco-Roman house while ameliorating its social

inequality “through an obligation of respect and love.” In contrast
to the other groups of believers greeted in this chapter, the church
in Prisca and Aquila’s house would have integrated members of
different strata, including slaves and children. Paul carries forward
the revolutionary pattern of social equality in Christ by greeting the
members of this diverse community of believers along with their
patrons, Prisca and Aquila. (p. 959)
Whatever the precise nature, the note bears witness to their ongoing
involvement in mission and church. 55 In short, Prisca is the most prominent
(married) woman in Paul’s mission enterprise.
Of Mary, not identified otherwise, Paul writes that she has worked
hard among the recipients (Rom 16:6; on her background, see Lampe 1989,
146–147). Bassler (2000b) observes:
Mary is the first of four women who are identified in the closing
greetings . . . as having “worked hard” in the young church in
Rome (see also v. 12). The nature of the work is not indicated, but
Paul uses the same Greek word to refer to his own missionary work
(1 Cor 15:10) and the work of leaders within local congregations
(1 Cor 16:16). Her name appears early in the list of greetings,
among those who are obviously known personally to Paul. She
certainly exercised a leadership role in the Roman church. (p. 124)
Recent studies of Rom 16:7 agree that the Greek name Ἰουνια refers
to a woman named Junia rather than a man named Junias. 56 According to
Haacker (2012, 378), the main reason for this conclusion is that two decades
of intensive research and lively discussion have failed to produce a single
instance of the male name Junias, while Junia was widespread. 57 In this
reading, Andronicus and Junia are often seen as a married couple. This view
is held, for instance, by Fitzmyer (1993, 739): “They could be considered
paired messengers of the gospel, even if husband and wife.” 58
55
For the significance of private houses for Paul’s mission, see Gehring (2000, 259–269, 291–
384). For the sizes of houses and workshops of artisans, see Richter Reimer (1995, 207–208).
56
For recent treatments, see Köstenberger (2000, 229–232) and Epp (2005). Further studies are
mentioned by Bauckham (2002, 214), who offers detailed discussion of the name and its origin.
57
See also Bauckham (2002, 214), Brooten (2000a, 107), Fitzmyer (1993, 737–740), Lampe (1989,
124–153) and Theobald (2000, 14–15).
58
Bauckham (2002, 214): “. . . probably the wife of her fellow-apostle Andronicus.” Schreiner
(1998, 796): “The judgement of many that Andronicus and Junia were husband and wife is also
probable.” Some scholars do not comment on their relationship to each other. Others note: “We do
not know their relationship to each other” (Brooten 2000a, 107).
Of Andronicus and Junia, Paul reports furthermore that they were in

prison with him. It would be interesting to know what joint (presumably
missionary) activities (and Jewish or gentile reactions) led to Junia’s
imprisonment. Haacker (2012, 380) notes that according to 2 Cor 11:23,
Paul must have been in prison more often than our only narrative source
about him (that is, the book of Acts) could expect its readers to tolerate or
pass on to posterity. Paul does not specify this event in this or other contexts;
neither does the book of Acts mention an imprisonment of Paul together
with others, except at Philippi (16:19–39). 59 That an association with Paul
could easily lead to imprisonment was, according to Acts, also the
experience of the Macedonian travel companions of Paul, Gaius and
Aristarchus (cf. Acts 19:29; see Keener 2014, 2905–2906; on Acts 17:5–9,
see pp. 2544–2558).
Presumably, the imprisonment mentioned in Rom 16:7 was the
consequence of rejected missionary activities that involved Andronicus,
Junia and Paul. Possibly, other Christians were involved as well. Junia must
have been involved—or at least perceived to have participated in these
activities—to such an extent that she was imprisoned together with the men.
However, Fitzmyer (1993, 739) rightly cautions: “It is possible, however,
that Paul does not mean that Andronicus and Junia were imprisoned with
him at the same time or in the same place; his mode of expression could
mean only that they too (at some time) had been imprisoned for the faith.”
Brooten (2000a, 107) suggests that Junia “may have been among those who
brought the message of Christ to the Roman Jewish community. Perhaps the
Romans imprisoned Junia and Andronicus because of conflicts about this
missionary work.”
This is noteworthy, as Paul and his male co-workers, according to
the book of Acts, get into trouble on several occasions (e.g., Paul and Silas
in Philippi according to Acts 16:25); in other cases, Paul alone gets into
trouble, and his co-workers are not harassed or imprisoned (Acts 14:19).
Aristarchus and Epaphras are also called fellow-prisoners (συναιχμάλωτος;
Col 4:10; Phlm 23; see Stuhlmacher 1989, 55; Trainor 2008). Of the about
seventy known co-workers of Paul, only Andronicus, Junia, Aristarchus and
Epaphras are called fellow prisoners.
Paul also notes that the couple was prominent or well known
among/to the apostles (ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοις ἀποστόλοις). 60 Two questions arise
59
Fitzmyer (1993, 739) and most scholars reject the suggestion that the term “fellow prisoner” is
to be taken figuratively.
60
For a discussion, see Jewett (2007, 961–964), Du Toit (2007, 367–369), Stenschke (2009, 155–
160) and Müller (2008, 37–40).
from this note. It is unclear what “apostle” means in this context. Although
a reference to the twelve apostles (eleven plus Matthias: Acts 1:15–26; see
Keener 2012, 768–769) is possible, “apostle” is more likely to have a
broader reference here, specially since Paul himself claims to be an apostle
(e.g., in Rom 1:1). We should probably think of the use in Acts 14:4, 14,
where Paul and Barnabas are called apostles (see Keener 2013, 2124–2125).
This probably means something like “emissaries” of the Antiochene
church. 61 Fitzmyer (1993, 739) concludes that the title “apostle” was given
to people “who were understood as commissioned itinerant evangelists.” 62
Thus, the couple is known among those who spread the gospel.
It is likewise disputed what Paul means by the preposition ἐν. Does
he count Andronicus and Junia among the “apostles,” or were they well
known to the “apostles” (for this discussion, see Haacker 2012, 379)? If Paul
numbered the couple among the apostles, this would mean that both were
fully recognised as emissaries of one or several churches and commissioned
in one form or another to propagate the faith.
Paul also notes that Andronicus and Junia had become Christians
before him. This would locate their conversion in Jerusalem, Judea or Syria
(according to the portrayal in Acts 9:2, there were Christians in Damascus
by the time of Paul’s conversion; cf. also Acts 9:31). The expression “being
in Christ” does not exclude the possibility that one or both of them had been
followers of the earthly Jesus. Depending on the uncertain date of Paul’s
own conversion or calling, the couple would have been Christians for well
over twenty years by the time Paul wrote to the Romans.
Unfortunately, we do not know where, in what capacity or for how
long Junia was involved in mission work with Andronicus and Paul (and
others). Nor do we know how much of that activity was linked to Paul and
his mission, or whether she or they had been active before their encounter
with Paul, or how they had been involved after their parting of ways with
Paul when they returned to Rome (see also Lampe 1989).
61
Cf. Bühner (2011, 349–350): “Schon Paulus greift nicht auf einen historisch definierten,
einheitlichen Apostelbegriff zurück . . . Er kennt Apostel als qualifizierte, urchristliche
Missionare . . ., wobei missionierende Prediger (1 Kor 9:5; 12:28; 2 Kor 11:13; Röm 16:7) und zu
besonderer Aufgabe bestellte Gemeindevertreter (2 Kor 8:23; Phil 2:25) zu unterscheiden, aber
nicht grundsätzlich zu trennen sind. . . . Paulus wirkt zunächst zusammen mit Barnabas als Apostel
der antiochenischen Gemeinde.” According to Keener (2013, 2125), the term reminds the readers
“that these were God’s commissioned agents analogous to the Twelve (cf. Luke 11:49), an idea
well suited to the way Luke parallels various characters.”
62
Brooten (2000a, 107) writes: “Since Junia fulfilled the Pauline criteria for apostleship (see 1 Cor
9:1), she must have claimed to have seen the risen Christ and have been engaged in missionary
work” (italics added). On the identity of the evangelists in the early church, see Marshall (2000).
Other named women are Tryphaena and Tryphosa, who are greeted
in this list as “workers” in the Lord (Rom 16:12), the beloved Persis, who
has also worked hard in the Lord (v. 12; see Bassler 2000c, 134), and Julia,
mentioned in Rom 16:15. Bassler (2000a, 106) comments that Julia “is
paired with Philologus . . . who is perhaps her husband or brother. These
two, together with the others mentioned in v. 15, probably constituted the
nucleus of one of several small congregations in Rome, which perhaps met
in their house.”
Romans 16:3–15 also contains two references to unnamed women.
Concerning the “mother of Rufus” (Rom 16:13), Bassler (2000e) writes:
The son’s (Latin) name was often given to slaves and freedmen,
suggesting that he was of low status. But Paul identifies him by his
special status in the Lord (“chosen”). She, however, is identified by
her special relationship to Paul (“a mother to me also”). Paul uses
the word mother figuratively here, but does not indicate how she
mothered him. Elsewhere Paul claims to have “mothered” (1 Cor
3:2; Gal 4:19) or “fathered” (1 Cor 4:1) new converts. If this woman
had some role in Paul’s conversion, he does not acknowledge it
anywhere else. More likely, she showed generous hospitality to
Paul on one of his trips or, like Phoebe, served as his patron.
(p. 469) 63
This mentioning of Rufus’s mother leads to an analogy: she was in some

way “a mother to me also.” Paul not only had a προστάτις in Phoebe (a term
from the language of patronage and social convention; see above), but also
a μήτηρ, a familial term. Lampe (1989, 153) writes: “this characterisation
most probably points to a matron who presides over a house, who in this
function was able to provide food and accommodation to the apostle, to
‘mother’ him.” In this case, Paul uses a maternal analogy. The metaphorical
63
While we follow the minimalist approach described above, Rom 16:14 is an interesting case.
Paul greets “Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, and the adelphoi who are with them.” Kraemer (2000,
469–470) notes: “Among the many places where the NRSV has introduced the translation of the
masculine plural adelphoi by the gender-inclusive ‘brothers and sisters’ is Paul’s greeting here to
‘Asyncritus, Phlegon, Hermes, Patrobas, Hermas, and the adelphoi who are with them.’ Although
there are many places where adelphoi clearly designates women and men together, this passage is
not necessarily one of them. All the other persons greeted here are men, and it is conceivable,
although not verifiable, that Paul here refers to a small male community of Christians at Rome.
Gender-inclusive translation here might inadvertently mask a reference to a single-sex
community.”
use of mother indicates that Paul does not reduce her (or other women) to a
physical maternal role. 64
Lastly, there is the unnamed sister of Nereus (Rom 16:15). According
to Bassler (2000f, 470), she probably belonged to a small house church,
whose members are greeted in this verse: “She was probably Nereus’s
natural sibling (and both may have been children of Julia and Philologus),
though the term sister was sometimes used of Christian wives (1 Cor 9:5)
and co-workers (Rom 16:1)” (see also Stenschke 2009). 65
In Rom 16, Paul acknowledges and praises specific/concrete women
for their different contributions to his mission as well as other activities in
congregations and in spreading the gospel. These women had different
social and ethnic backgrounds (see Lampe 1989, 135–153, 156–164); two
of them were most likely married; others were perhaps single or not in
submission to husbands (7:2); some were mothers (like the unnamed mother
of Rufus); others might have been childless. Other than Prisca’s association
with Aquila, Junia’s association with Andronicus and the fact that Rufus’s
mother also metaphorically “mothered” Paul, nothing of what one might
have expected in view of the previous general/abstract references to women
in the letter is mentioned in Rom 16. Mentioning Prisca first, if this is of
significance, even runs counter to what one might have expected. What is
mentioned in this regard in Rom 16 seems to be of no concern in the
foregoing argumentation.
At least for one of these women, her Christian activities had drawn
attention from authorities and had met with resistance, even up to the point
of imprisonment. Although the proclamation of the Jew Jesus of Nazareth
as Messiah and universal Lord (who was from the East and crucified by
Roman authorities) would not have been acceptable from a Roman
perspective, Paul, without hesitance, gladly acknowledges such activities,
which were seen (in the case of Junia) and would continue to be seen as
undermining Roman order. In this regard, Paul’s explicit and, in some cases,
detailed references to these specific Christian women do not fit the
traditional role models and patterns in which women appear elsewhere in
64
Reminiscent of Rufus’s mother “mothering” Paul, the New Testament Society of Southern Africa
hosted a conference in 2016 with the theme “Mothering Salvation? Gender and Class in Early
Christian Household Discourse—Mothering, Community and Care: An Interdisciplinary
Conference on Gender Studies in the Humanities.” Some of the presentations delivered at this
conference were published in Neotestamentica 50.1 (2016). See the editorial by Mouton (2016).
65
While Paul sends greetings from a number of men at the place of writing (16:21–24), he does
not send greetings from any woman; neither does he do so in any of his other extant letters. Paul
does not mention any female co-worker who might be with him at the time of writing, or whom he
might bring to Rome and take on to Spain. However, Paul does not mention men in this regard
either. The list of greetings in Rom 16:3–15 suggests that Paul had such female co-workers.
Romans in a general/abstract way (procreation, submission, marriage), and

would not have won Roman approval.
However, it is noteworthy that Paul refers to their Christian activities
in a certain context. While the marital status of some women is not identified
(e.g., Phoebe merely appears as a benefactor; Mary and others are defined
through their work in Rom 16:6), other women are not only praised for their
Christian commitment, but also portrayed as actioning such commitment
within the traditional roles mentioned previously in the letter in relation to
women: they appear as spouses (Prisca in 16:3; Junia in 16:7 66) or in a
maternal role (the physical mother of Rufus in 16:13, while the traditional
role and tasks of motherhood also serve as a model for her relationship to
Paul). In addition, Paul mentions several houses and perhaps families (Rom
16:10–11, 15). For at least some of the women mentioned in Rom 16, Paul
indicates that the traditional female roles appearing in Rom 1–9 and
appreciated in Roman society are not cancelled by the Christian ministry of
these women. As a consequence, Paul further illustrates that traditional
female roles and praiseworthy Christian ministry are not mutually
exclusive. This may be one way forward in reconciling the different
references to women in Romans. 67
3 Summary – Analysis – Implications
While Romans is surely not a treatise about women, there are a number of
intriguing references to women in different parts of the letter, which we have
examined. Paul refers in traditional and generalising terms to the sexual
practices of gentile women both as a consequence of their refusal to
recognise and honour God (Rom 1:20–25) and as divine judgement in
response (1:26). Both women and men are affected, although the female
version is addressed more vaguely and briefly. In Rom 7:2–3, Paul refers to
one of the laws that regulates the life and behaviour of married women. She
is subordinated and bound to her husband. Only after his death is she free to
remarry; otherwise she commits adultery when attaching herself to another
man. The analogy serves to show that Christians have died to the law and
are no longer under its power. Now there is freedom from the law for women
66
They are not called spouses, but are probably identified as such through the mention of their
husbands.
67
While it is helpful to distinguish between general/abstract and specific/concrete references to
women, and to note where in the argument of Romans they appear, the pattern is not clear cut.
Sarah and Rebekah appear as mothers. Also, the mother of Rufus (and of Paul) is defined through
traditional roles. It is not the case that the concrete references present a picture different from the
general references.
and men alike. The former passivity is over. Female experiences become
the pattern for all believers and the model for freedom: like a woman is
legally subordinated to her husband, the believers are now subordinated to
Christ (6:1–11), bound to him and living in the Spirit. The fruit they all are
to bear as a consequence of this new union reminds of women giving birth
to children. Paul uses the pains of childbirth to describe the current state of
all of creation and to point to the dawn of a new age (Rom 8:22).
Paul also refers to specific individual women, that is, the matriarchs
of Israel’s past (Sarah, Rebekah) and contemporary Christian women in
Rome. Sarah is mentioned in passing on two occasions as the first matriarch
of Israel. Her offspring was the child of promise. Rebekah plays a prominent
role and her active involvement in the events is emphasised. She not only
gave birth, but also received divine revelation.
The elaborate list of greetings in Rom 16:3–15 includes nine
Christian women who are mentioned neither in passing nor as part of a larger
argument. Paul greets them affectionately and wholeheartedly, appreciates
and praises them for their Christian character and activity. Several of the
women are identified as co-workers and missionaries in their own right,
using terminology that Paul uses elsewhere to describe his own ministry.
Curiously, the women whose ministries are acknowledged in greatest detail
(Prisca and Junia) were most likely married. Paul does not differentiate
along gender lines or otherwise in his greetings and in his praise of the
character and merits of individual Christians. He fully affirms all his friends
in Rome, regardless of their gender, background or status.
In these references to women, Paul moves from disapproving of
women’s “unnatural use” and refusal to bear children (1:26), to depicting
women as bearers of (special) children (and therefore significant in God’s
purposes, like Sarah in 4:19), to providing definitions of their status with
reference to their husbands and the acceptability of their behaviour as an
analogy to the believers’ stance vis-à-vis the law (dead or living, 7:2–3), to
identifying Rebekah’s womb as the “location” of divine choice and
describing her reception of divine revelation concerning the future bearer of
the divine promise (9:10–12), to acknowledging and praising women for
their involvement in missionary work. Nowhere in this movement is the
rhetorical “then” and “now” juxtaposition discernible as it appears
elsewhere in the NT (see the survey in Tachau 1972), as if the traditional
roles are considered a thing of the past and now revoked to enable other
roles.
In short, Romans offers a mixture of traditional Jewish and Roman

judgments on the unnatural practices of women, the traditional role of
women as bearers of children and the traditional status of women in
subordination to their husbands. At the same time, there are significant
modifications to this traditional picture. Throughout the letter, women are
fully included in salvation, together with its abiding benefits and changes,
and are praised for their involvement in church and mission. In Rom 16, as
spouses, mothers, family members and perhaps single women, they are full
partners in Christian ministry. 68
How is this portrait to be evaluated? Due to the scarcity and nature
of the references, firm conclusions are difficult to draw. Some interpreters
of Paul take Rom 16 as their point of departure and emphasise its portrayal
of women. For instance, Tamez (2003, 558) writes concerning Paul: “Also
his day-to-day relationships with women who are church leaders cannot be
overlooked, his appreciation and respect for them (Rom 16). Unfortunately,
the language of Paul’s theologising is often so androcentric, that it hides the
nature of Paul’s day-to-day relationships to his female colleagues in his
mission work.” This observation underlines the ambiguity that we have
observed and perhaps a certain inconsistency in Paul’s references to women.
In the references to women in Rom 1–9, Paul as a man of his day and age
displays traditional Jewish and Hellenistic-Roman patriarchal attitudes to
women: in exclusive references to women, they appear in the context of
issues of sexuality, as humans with regulated (inferior) legal status and as
bearers of children. At the same time, Paul’s references to women in Rom
16 show his respect for and full recognition of his female missionary
colleagues and their contribution (see Blomberg 2006). To postmodern
minds, these perspectives appear contradictory: should the respect that Paul
shows for women in ch. 16 not have impinged on his statements in the first
part of the letter and led to different exempla and rhetoric? As we have it,
both perspectives appear next to each other. It remained and remains for
later reflection to draw out the implications of the latter portrayal for the
former.
This tension between traditional statements and the actual practice of
women has been emphasised in recent studies on women in the Pauline
68
This is all the more significant when considering that in the past three decades the epistolary
frame of Romans has increasingly gained significance in determining the occasion and purpose of
Romans. In current research, the letter is not understood on the basis of its “doctrinal” main body
(1:16–15:13), as was the case for centuries (with neglect of the epistolary frame), but from Rom
1:1–15 and 15:14–16:25. The frame is used to interpret the body. An instructive (and
comprehensive) example is the approach in Jewett’s commentary (2007).
literature. Some scholars have argued for an approach that brings women to
the centre. MacDonald (1999, 199) implores: “Instead of concentrating
primarily on male attitudes towards women as has been done in the past, the
focus should shift to reconstructing the lives of women themselves. Every
effort should be made to hear their voices, to witness their behaviour.” Thus,
while the exclusive references to women in Rom 1–9 display “male
attitudes” (which are not limited to the statements regarding women; they
apply to men as well), Rom 16 offers some material for reconstructing what
“actually happened” in the Pauline mission and communities and should
guide our assessment. MacDonald (1999) rightly notes:
The fact that references to specific women are often found in texts
that traditionally have held little theological interest, such as final
greetings (e.g. Rom 16), only compounded the problem of an
incomplete vision of women in Pauline Christianity. However, the
effort in feminist scholarship to move beyond an understanding of
male attitudes toward women in order to grasp the actual
circumstances of women’s lives has led to scholars mining the
much less well known references to Phoebe, Prisca, and other
women of the Pauline mission for information. Since the brief
references sometimes point to a surprising openness to women
leaders and missionary workers, they have played an important part
in transforming the dominant image of the women in Pauline
communities as always veiled and silenced. (p. 199) 69
Another explanation for the tension between traditional statements and

actual practice that we have observed lies in Paul’s own situation at the time
of writing and in the fragile historical situation in Rome. While it is
notoriously difficult to reconstruct what an ancient author had in mind,
Paul’s references to women in Romans are plausible when read in this way.
However, whether this was Paul’s deliberate strategy cannot be proven.
69
A similar case is argued by Köstenberger (2000) in his examination of women in the Pauline
mission. He emphasises the need to understand what the women mentioned by Paul were actually
doing and combines that evidence with the statements regarding female activities. After surveying
the women mentioned in the context of Paul’s mission (that is, Chloe, Priscilla, Phoebe, Junia,
other women referred to in Rom 16, Euodia and Syntyche and other women referred to in the prison
epistles and the Pastorals), he summarises Paul’s explicit statements on female ministry (“Pauline
teaching on women in the church”) and concludes that “Paul’s teaching in the role of women and
the way in which women actually functioned in the Pauline churches are consistent” (p. 237). He
argues: “A comprehensive, balanced account of Paul’s stance toward women’s roles must take
account of both: how women should function in the church according to Pauline teaching (didactic
passages on women’s roles) and how they actually did function in the Pauline churches and mission
in keeping with the apostle’s instructions (narrative passages and references to specific women in
Paul’s writings)” (p. 222, italics original).
Would the acknowledgement of women for their unusual activities

in Rom 16—involvement in mission work—without the traditional
statements on women elsewhere in the letter be open to misunderstanding
by some Christians in Rome (see, for instance, the situation in Corinth and
later in Ephesus) and/or other potential readers of this letter in the imperial
capital? Would a less balanced picture (i.e., one without ambiguity)
endanger the Christians in Rome in a politically vulnerable situation by
causing unrest and undermine Paul’s own expectations for his impending
visit to the city? Would a direct statement of equality of male and female
(such as in Gal 3:28 70) possibly or readily be used as a slogan by the friends
and/or foes of Paul in Rome and “ruffle feathers” unnecessarily?
In addition, restrictive Roman policy on women and wives might also
be the backdrop to Paul’s strategy. On the one hand, Paul can be understood
as affirming some Roman values and convictions regarding women. Paul
condemns female “unnatural use” that does not lead to procreation, which
was promoted by Roman legislation, argues for faithfulness in marriage and
against adultery (Rom 7:2–3), possibly in view of recent events in Rome
regarding married women, and mentions the patriarchal wives Sarah and
Rebekah who fulfilled their maternal roles. Paul only addresses Sarah’s
eventual motherhood (4:19; 9:9). Rebekah conceived two sons. Her inquiry
to the Lord about the children appears in passing (“she was told”). The
notion of a woman making an inquiry to a deity about her children would
not have been offensive in a Roman context. In view of his emphasis on
liberty, of his reputation to cause unrest and of the many charges by his
opponents (which are reflected in the letter), Paul indicates that he will not
directly challenge these notions during his impending visit, as he will not
push his position on other issues either (e.g., 15:1).
On the other hand, some statements in Romans not only portray
women in non-offensive private religious practice and in traditional marital
and maternal roles, but also in active missionary work for an Eastern
religion, which could easily be perceived as “propaganda,” and to such an
extent that at least in one case it had already led to imprisonment (Rom
16:7). Thus, some women were involved in activities that could easily be
seen as subversive. Such activities Paul does not deny; rather, he praises
them. While Paul does not directly state that male and female are equal in
salvation as he does in Galatians, his acknowledgement of women in
70
Indirectly, the assertion is present in the letter, as a maximalist approach would amply indicate
and as we have observed.
Rom 16 leaves no doubt about his high appreciation of them and their
equality in bringing about God’s purposes and proclaming the gospel.
Any assessment of the present nature would have to include Paul’s
references to men in general (1:27; 7:2–3) as well as groups of men and
individual men, including himself (1:3; 4; 5:12–19; 9:5, 7–13, 17, 25, 27;
11:1–4). What, if any, pattern emerges from such an analysis? In addition,
our results, based on a minimalist approach (limited to explicit references to
women) need to be correlated to the findings of a maximalist approach as
outlined above. Is the pattern that we have identified in the references to
women also discernible elsewhere? In some cases, Paul affirms traditional
Jewish positions (e.g., in his rigorous analysis of gentiles in Rom 1); in other
cases, he challenges them and speaks of a radical new state and existence in
Christ.
While interacting with studies from this perspective, this article took
neither one of the traditional feminist or liberation approaches, nor one of
the more recent feminist or gender approaches to the interpretation of
biblical texts (see Sherwood 2017). A hermeneutic of suspicion would
search consistently for aspects that have been suppressed by the biblical text.
(The understanding over many centuries of Junia in Rom 16:7 as male
Junias indicates that at least the reception history of Romans must surely be
assessed critically!) It would question the scarcity of Paul’s references to
women or their particular focus, 71 which indicate that Paul displayed some
perspectives typical of ancient men and affirmed Jewish values that (in this
case) agreed with traditional Roman mores. (However, other aspects of his
theology were diametrically opposed to Jewish convictions and Roman
values; should Paul have been more consistent?) For some of the
occurrences of women in Romans, Paul may be criticised for his
reductionism, for affirming traditional role models for women, such as
mothers and wives who submit to their husbands. However, this is not all
that Paul conveys. He speaks of Rebekah as a recipient of divine revelation
and highlights and praises some women for their religious activities, that is,
their Christian ministry, with or without their husbands, with or without
taking family ties into consideration.
Our approach and aims were more modest. Using historical analysis
and focusing on the rhetorical function of these references, the article tried
to analyse them and see if any pattern or development in Paul’s train of
thought emerges. While each reference to women functions in its own
71
Paul’s statements on homosexuality in particular are intensely discussed today (see, e.g.,
Schnabel 2015, 232–244, 259–264; Wolter 2014, 153–154).
context in the argument of the letter, when taken together and read in
sequence, these references also have a rhetorical function: they show that,
for Paul, the affirmation of traditional female roles and behaviour, on the
one hand, and the new status, options and ministries of women in early
Christian communities and missionary activities, on the other, are not
mutually exclusive. Against the historical backdrop described at the
beginning of this article and the tense rhetorical situation to which it led, the
reading proposed here suits the purpose of the letter as Paul’s attempt to
initiate an apostolic partnership with the Christians in Rome (see Theobald
2000, 35–42; Jewett 2007, 80–91).
To argue for a deliberate strategy behind Paul’s more “traditional”
references to women in Rom 1–9 is a bold step. Whether Paul would have
written something else under different circumstances is difficult to guess.
Paul was a patriarchal Jew and Roman of the first century who took for
granted a particular understanding of women and their role (together with
many other things!). 72 Indeed, he was a man very different from his modern
interpreters. Paul’s main concern was salvation in the Jewish Messiah, Jesus
of Nazareth. This was now available for all who believe, Jews and gentiles
alike, and had to be proclaimed: “Woe to me if I do not preach the gospel”
(1 Cor 9:16, ESV). To this he had been called and the task was comprehen-
sive enough.
An assessment of Paul’s stance and strategy must also make
allowance for the observation that even in Paul’s traditional statements there
are traces of something different. Paul knows of women of the past who
played a significant role in bringing about the purposes of God and who
received divine revelation (Sarah and Rebekah). And there is something
new for the present, which, for Paul, was not in tension with the former: the
role and submission of women in marriage serve as an illustration for the
believers’ new union with and subordination to Christ (Rom 7:2–3), which
should bear fruit for God, just as marriage should be fruitful (Gen 1:28).
Despite the affirmation of women’s traditional roles in his general/abstract
statements, Paul praises their involvement in missionary work in his
specific/concrete references. It remained for the reception history of Paul’s
writings, together with the present interpreters of these writings, to work out
the relationship between these two strands and to assess the former in view
of the latter.
72
See the nuanced appreciation of Paul, “Paulus im Urteil der Geschichte,” by Lohse (1996, 283–
299), particularly on men and women (pp. 295–297).
Bibliography
Adams, E. 2013. The Earliest Christian Meeting Places: Almost Exclusively Houses?
London: Bloomsbury [LNTS 450].
Akasheh, K. B. 2000. Ensemble au service de l’Évangile: Les collaborateurs et les
collaboratrices de Saint Paul. Murcia: Pontificia Università Lateranense [Corona
lateranensis].
Alvarez-Cineira, D. 1999. Die Religionspolitik des Kaisers Claudius und die paulinische
Mission. Freiburg: Herder [Herders Biblische Studien 19].
Arterbury, A. E. 2005. Entertaining Angels: Early Christian Hospitality in Its
Mediterranean Setting. Sheffield: Sheffield Phoenix [New Testament
Monographs].
Baltrusch, E. 2002. Die Juden und das Römische Reich: Geschichte einer konfliktreichen
Beziehung. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Banister, J. A. 2009. Ὁμοίως and the Use of Parallelism in Romans 1:26/27. JBL 128:
569–590.
Barrett, C. K. 1998. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Acts of the Apostles II:
Introduction and Commentary on Acts 15–28. Edinburgh: T&T Clark [ICC].
Bassler, J. M. 2000a. Julia. Pages 106–107 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
_______. 2000b. Mary 7. Page 124 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
_______. 2000c. Persis. Page 134 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
_______. 2000d. Phoebe. Pages 134–136 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
_______. 2000e. Romans 16:13: Mother of Rufus. Page 469 in Meyers, Craven and
Kraemer, eds. 2000.
_______. 2000f. Romans 16:15: Sister of Nereus. Page 470 in Meyers, Craven and
Kraemer, eds. 2000.
Bauckham, R. 2002. Paul and Other Jews with Latin Names in the New Testament. Pages
202–220 in Paul, Luke and the Graeco-Roman World: FS A. J. M. Wedderburn.
Edited by A. Christophersen, C. Claussen, J. Frey and B. Longenecker. Sheffield:
Sheffield Academic [JSNTSup 217].
Blomberg, C. L. 2006. Neither Hierarchialist nor Egalitarian: Gender Roles in Paul. Pages
283–326 in Paul and His Theology. Edited by S. E. Porter. Leiden: Brill [Pauline
Studies 3].
Briggs, S. 2000a. Sarah 1/Sarai. Pages 150–152 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds.
2000.
_______. 2000b. Rom 7:2–3: Married Woman. Page 469 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer,
eds. 2000.
Brooten, B. J. 1996. Love between Women: Early Christian Responses to Female
Homoeroticism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
_______. 2000a. Junia. Page 107 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
_______. 2000b. Rom 1:26: Unnatural Intercourse of Women. Pages 468–469 in Meyers,
Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
Bühner, J. A. 2011. ἀπόστολος. Columns 342–351 in Exegetisches Wörterbuch zum
Neuen Testament, vol. I. Edited by H. Balz and G. Schneider. Stuttgart:
Kohlhammer.
Bultmann, R. [1910] 1984. Der Stil der paulinischen Predigt und die kynisch-stoische
Diatribe. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [FRLANT 13].
Conway, C. M. 2014. The Construction of Gender in the New Testament. Pages 222–240
in The Oxford Handbook of Theology, Sexuality, and Gender. Edited by A.
Thatcher. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Cranfield, C. E. B. 1979. A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Epistle to the
Romans II: Commentary on Romans 9–16 and Essays. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
[ICC].
Debel, H. 2009. “Unnatural Intercourse” in Romans 1:26–27. Pages 631–640 in The
Letter to the Romans. Edited by U. Schnelle. Leuven: Peeters [BETL 226].
Dickson, J. P. 2003. Mission-Commitment in Ancient Judaism and in the Pauline
Communities: The Shape, Extent and Background of Early Christian Mission.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck [WUNT II.159].
Drews, A. 2006. Paulus in Gemeinschaft seiner Mitarbeiter. MTh diss., University of
South Africa.
Du Toit, A. 2007. Text-Critical Issues in Romans 14-16. Pages 351–370 in Focusing on
Paul: Persuasion and Theological Design in Romans and Galatians. Edited by
Cilliers Breytenbach and David S. du Toit. Berlin: de Gruyter [BZNW 151].
Eißler, F. 2003. Aquila und Priska. Page 102 in Calwer Bibellexikon. Edited by O. Betz,
B. Ego, W. Grimm and W. Zwickel. Stuttgart: Calwer.
Elliott, N. 2008. The Arrogance of the Nations: Reading Romans in the Shadow of Empire.
Minneapolis: Fortress [Paul in Critical Contexts].
Ellis, E. E. 1993. Paul and His Co-Workers. Pages 183–189 in DPL.
Epp, J. E. 2005. Junia: First Woman Apostle. Augsburg: Minneapolis.
Fitzmyer, J. A. 1993. Romans: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary.
New York: Doubleday [AB 33].
Foucher, F. 1981. Le culte de Bacchus sous l’empire Romain. Pages 684–702 in ANRW
II.17.2.
Gäckle, V. 2005. Die Starken und die Schwachen in Korinth und in Rom: Zur Herkunft
und Funktion der Antithese in 1Kor 8.1–11.1 und Röm 14.1–15.13. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck [WUNT II.200].
Gehring, R. W. 2000. Hausgemeinde und Mission: Die Bedeutung antiker Häuser und
Hausgemeinden von Jesus bis Paulus. Giessen: Brunnen [BWM 9].
Gorce, D. 1972. Gastfreundschaft C. Christlich I. NT. Columns 1103–1120 in RAC 8.
Griffin, M. T. 1984. Nero: The End of a Dynasty. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Haacker, K. 2003. The Theology of Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press [New Testament Theology].
_______. 2012. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer. 4th ed. Leipzig: Evangelische
Verlagsanstalt [ThHKNT 6].
Hentschel, Anni. 2007. Diakonia im Neuen Testament: Studien zur Semantik unter
besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rolle von Frauen. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck
[WUNT II.226].
Heinz, W. 2003. Reisewege der Antike: Unterwegs im Römischen Reich. Stuttgart: Theiss.
Hezser, C. J. 2011. Jewish Travel in Antiquity. Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck [TSAJ 144].
Hiltbrunner, O. 1972. Gastfreundschaft B. Nichtchristlich V. Griech.-röm. Welt. Columns
1082–1092 in RAC 8.
_______. 2005. Gastfreundschaft in der Antike und im frühen Christentum. Darmstadt:
Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Hübner, H. 1996. Paulus I. Neues Testament. Pages 133–153 in TRE 26.
Instone-Brewer, D. 2010. Marriage and Divorce. Pages 916–917 in The Eerdmans

Dictionary of Early Judaism. Edited by J. J. Collins and D. C. Harlow. Grand
Rapids: Eerdmans.
Jewett, R. 1988. Paul, Phoebe, and the Spanish Mission. Pages 142–161 in The Social
World of Formative Christianity and Judaism. Edited by J. Neusner, P. Borgen,
E. S. Frerichs and R. Horsley. Philadelphia: Fortress.
_______. 2007. Romans: A Commentary. Philadelphia: Fortress [Hermeneia].
Keener, C. S. 2012. Acts An Exegetical Commentary: Introduction and 1:1–2:47. Grand
Rapids: Baker.
_______. 2013. Acts An Exegetical Commentary: 3:1–14:28. Grand Rapids: Baker.
_______. 2014. Acts An Exegetical Commentary: 15:1–23:35. Grand Rapids: Baker.
Klauck, H.-J. 1995. Die religiöse Umwelt des Urchristentums. I: Stadt- und Hausreligion,
Mysterienkulte. Stuttgart: Kohlhammer [Kohlhammer Studienbücher Theologie
9.1].
Köstenberger, A. J. 2000. Women in the Pauline Mission. Pages 221-247 in The Gospel
to the Nations: Perspectives on Paul’s Mission. FS P. T. O’Brien. Edited by P. G.
Bolt and M. Thompson. Leicester: Intervarsity Press.
Kraemer, R. S. 2000. Rom 16:14: Sisters (and Brothers) Greeted by Paul. Pages 469–470
in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer, eds. 2000.
Kunst, C. 2006. Eheallianzen und Ehealltag in Rom. Pages 32–52 in Frauenwelten in der
Antike: Geschlechterordnung und Lebenspraxis. Edited by T. Späth and B.
Wagner-Hasel. Stuttgart: J. B. Metzler.
Lampe, P. 1989. Die stadtrömischen Christen in den ersten beiden Jahrhunderten. 2d ed.
Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck [WUNT II.18].
Lohse, E. 1996. Paulus: Eine Biographie. München: C. H. Beck.
MacDonald, M. Y. 1999. Reading Real Women through the Undisputed Letters of Paul.
Pages 199–220 in Women and Christian Origins. Edited by R. S. Kraemer and
M. R. D’Angelo. New York: Oxford University Press.
Marshall, I. H., and P. H. Towner. 1999. The Pastoral Epistles. Edinburgh: T&T Clark
[ICC].
Marshall, I. H. 2000. Who Were the Evangelists? Pages 251-263 in The Mission of the
Early Church to Jews and Gentiles. Edited by J. Adna and H. Kvalbein. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck [WUNT 127].
Martin, D. B. 1995. Heterosexism and the Interpretation of Romans 1:18–32. BibInt
3:332–355.
Mathew, S. 2013. Women in the Greetings of Romans 16:1–16: A Study of Mutuality and
Women’s Ministry in the Letter to the Romans. London: Bloomsbury T&T Clark
[LNTS 471].
McGinn, S. E. 2004. Feminist Approaches to Paul’s Letter to the Romans. Pages 165–176
in Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology. Edited by S. E. McGinn.
Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Mette-Dittmann, A. 1991. Die Ehegesetze des Augustus: Eine Untersuchung im Rahmen
der Gesellschaftspolitik des Princeps. Stuttgart: Franz Steiner [Historia –
Einzelschriften 67]
Meyers, C., T. Craven and R. S. Kraemer, eds. 2000. Women in Scripture: A Dictionary
of the Named and Unnamed Women in the Hebrew Bible, the
Apocryphal/Deuterocanonical Books, and the New Testament. Grand Rapids:
Eerdmans.
Miller, J. E. 1995. The Practices of Romans 1:26: Homosexual or Heterosexual? NT 37:2–
11.
Mouton, E. 2016. Editorial: Mothering Salvation? Gender and Class in Early Christian
Household Discourse. Neot 50(1):1–8.
Müller, C. G. 2008. Frühchristliche Ehepaare und paulinische Mission. Stuttgart:
Katholisches Bibelwerk [SBS 215].
Murphy, D. J. 2019. More Evidence Pertaining to “Their Females” in Romans 1:26. JBL
138:221–240.
O’Brien, J. M., ed. 2014. The Oxford Encyclopedia of The Bible and Gender Studies.
Oxford: Oxford University Press [Oxford Encyclopedias of the Bible].
Ollrog, W.-H. 1979. Paulus und seine Mitarbeiter: Untersuchungen zur Theorie und
Praxis der paulinischen Mission. Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener [WMANT
50].
Pilhofer, P. 2002. Die ökonomische Attraktivität christlicher Gemeinden. Pages 194–218
in Die frühen Christen und ihre Welt: Greifswalder Aufsätze 1996–2001: Mit
Beiträgen von Eva Ebel und Jens Börstinghaus. Edited by P. Pilhofer. Tübingen:
Mohr Siebeck [WUNT 145].
Porter, S. E. 2005. Did Paul Have Opponents in Rome and What Were They Opposing?
Pages 149–168 in Paul and His Opponents. Edited by S. E. Porter. Leiden: Brill
[Pauline Studies 2].
Reasoner, M. 1999. The Strong and the Weak: Romans 14:1–15:13 in Context.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press [SNTSMS 103].
Richards, E. R. 2004. Paul and First-Century Letter Writing: Secretaries, Composition
and Collection. Downers Grove: Intervarsity Press.
Richter Reimer, I. 1995. Women in the Acts of the Apostles: A Feminist Liberation
Perspective. Minneapolis: Fortress.
Schnabel, E. J. 2015. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer Kapitel 1–5. Witten: SCM R.
Brockhaus; Gießen: Brunnen [Historisch-Theologische Auslegung].
_______. 2016. Der Brief des Paulus an die Römer Kapitel 6–16. Witten: SCM R.
Brockhaus; Gießen: Brunnen [Historisch-Theologische Auslegung].
Schnelle, U. 2013. Einleitung in das Neue Testament. 8th ed. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht [UTB Theologie Religion 1830].
Schreiner, T. R. 1998. Romans. Grand Rapids: Baker [BECNT].
Schüssler-Fiorenza, E. 1983. In Memory of Her: A Feminist Theological Reconstruction
of Christian Origins. New York: Crossroad.
Sherwood, Y., ed. 2017. The Bible and Feminism: Remapping the Field. Oxford: Oxford
University Press.
Stenschke, C. 2009. Married Women and the Spread of Early Christianity. Neot 43:145–
194.
_______. 2012. Paul’s Jewish Gospel and the Claims of Rome in Paul’s Epistle to the
Romans. Neot 46:338–378.
_______. 2017. Human and Non-Human Creation and Its Redemption in Paul’s Letter to
the Romans. Neot 51:261–289.
Stuhlmacher, P. 1989. Der Brief an Philemon. 3d ed. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-

Vluyn: Neukirchener [EKK 17].
Sumney, J. L. 2000. “Servants of Satan,” “False Brothers” and Other Opponents of Paul.
Sheffield: Sheffield Academic [JSNTSup 188].
Tachau, P. 1972. “Einst” und “Jetzt” im Neuen Testament: Beobachtungen zu einem
urchristlichen Predigtschema in der neutestamentlichen Briefliteratur und zu
seiner Vorgeschichte. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht [FRLANT 105].
Tamez, E. 2003. Der Brief an die Gemeinde in Rom. Pages 557–573 in Kompendium
feministische Bibelauslegung. Edited by L. Schottroff und M.-T. Wacker. 2d ed.
Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
_______. 2004. Justification as Good News for Women: A Re-Reading of Romans 1–8.
Pages 177–189 in Celebrating Romans: Template for Pauline Theology. Edited
by S. E. McGinn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Theobald, M. 2000. Der Römerbrief. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft
[Erträge der Forschung 294].
Thimmes, P. 2004. “She Will Be Called an Adulteress . . .”: Marriage and Adultery
Analogies in Romans 7:1–4. Pages 190–203 in Celebrating Romans: Template
for Pauline Theology. Edited by S. E. McGinn. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Towner, P. H. 2006. The Letters to Timothy and Titus. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans [NICNT].
Trainor, M. 2008. Epaphras: Paul’s Educator at Colossae. Collegeville: Liturgical Press
[Paul’s Social Network: Brothers and Sisters in Faith].
Van der Horst, P. W. 2000. Rebekah. Pages 144–145 in Meyers, Craven and Kraemer,
eds. 2000.
Vorster, J. N. 1994. The Context of the Letter to the Romans: A Critique of the Present
State of Research. Neot 28:127–145.
Weeber, K.-W. 2011. Nachtleben im alten Rom. 3d ed. Darmstadt: Primus.
Wheeler-Reid, D. 2018. Regulating Sex in the Roman Empire: Ideology, the Bible, and
the Early Christians. New Haven: Yale University Press [Synkrisis: Comparative
Approaches to Early Christianity in Greco-Roman Culture].
Williams, D. J. 1999. Paul’s Metaphors: Their Content and Character. Peabody:
Hendrickson.
Winter, B. W. 2003. Roman Wives, Roman Widows: The Appearance of New Women and
the Pauline Communities. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans.
Wolter, M. 2014. Der Brief an die Römer: Teilband 1 Römer 1–8. Ostfildern: Patmos;
Neukirchen-Vluyn: Neukirchener Theologie [EKK VI/1].
cstenschke@t-online.de
Department of Biblical and Ancient Studies, UNISA, Pretoria, South Africa
Bahnhofstrasse 1, 51702 Bergneustadt, Germany
Copyright of Neotestamentica is the property of New Testament Society of Southern Africa
and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without
the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or
email articles for individual use.

Referencia de Paulo Às Mulheres Na Carta Aos Romanos

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Referencia de Paulo Às Mulheres Na Carta Aos Romanos

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Paul's References to Women in His Letter to the Romans and

Their Function in the Argument of the Letter: A Modest

Neotestamentica, Volume 54, Number 1, 2020, pp. 1-45 (Article)

Published by New Testament Society of Southern Africa

For additional information about this article

[ Access provided at 28 Aug 2020 11:13 GMT from Ebsco Publishing ]

Neotestamentica 54.1 (2020) 1–45

and specific references to women and examine what portrait emerges of

Here, we summarise aspects of this historical background that are relevant

1.1 Women in Rome

The readers . . . probably would have remembered distinctively a

1.2 The Christians of Rome

According to Acts 18:2–3, the Christian communities of Rome had

1.3 The controversial Jewish apostle

deserved!” 14), Paul acknowledges that he is controversial, refers to

1.4 The Roman reputation of religions from the East

To Roman eyes, Paul, the Jew, comes to Rome as a proponent of an Eastern

A drastic and long-remembered instance was the scandal concerning the

Augustus, the guardian of public morality, could not accept such a

Messalina meanwhile, more wildly profligate than ever, was

We have referred to this incident already when discussing a background to

Our following analysis of the references to women in Romans will

Some references to women in Romans refer to women in general or abstract

2.1 Romans 1:18–21

To substantiate the claim in v. 26a concerning dishonorable

to highly prejudicial language, particularly to the modern ear. It

As an example of disgraceful degeneracy to passions Paul mentions

Here we present in some detail Haacker’s challenge to this widespread

The reference to the behaviour of these women not only illustrates

2.2 Romans 4:19

promise) are mentioned. However, these omissions, which present her in a

2.3 Romans 7:2–3

As an illustration of the principle that the law is binding on a person only

Thus a married woman is bound by the law to her husband as long

disapproval, when he states that in order to marry Herod Antipas, Herodias

Paul’s argument rests on the assumption that, according to Jewish

2.4 Romans 8:22

In Romans 8:18–25, the focus of the metaphor is on what lies

2.5 Romans 9:9–12

In Rom 9, Paul returns to important women of Israel’s past. Sarah, already

. . . exemplifies this principle further by arguing that it is not only

younger” (Gen 25:23). So only Jacob is heir to the promise. (pp.

In Paul’s abbreviated version of the Genesis account, Rebekah takes centre

Romans 16 contains a variety of references to women. In contrast to the

Although earlier commentaries interpret the term διάκονος as a

While not excluding activities elsewhere, Jewett’s focus is on Phoebe’s

diakon-wordgroup, Hentschel (2007, 172) emphasises that the concept

At the least, this formulation suggests that the activities planned by

 If the statement of Phoebe as διάκονος in this sense is taken at face

Paul wholeheartedly recommends Phoebe to the Christians in Rome: “that

The host or hostess of house churches was usually a person of high

In contrast to the portrayal of women so far in the letter, Phoebe does

For Paul, being a Christian involves being set to work, an active

of the gospel (that “work” here has a particular reference to

structure of the Greco-Roman house while ameliorating its social

Of Andronicus and Junia, Paul reports furthermore that they were in

This mentioning of Rufus’s mother leads to an analogy: she was in some

Romans in a general/abstract way (procreation, submission, marriage), and

3 Summary – Analysis – Implications

In short, Romans offers a mixture of traditional Jewish and Roman

Another explanation for the tension between traditional statements and

Would the acknowledgement of women for their unusual activities

Instone-Brewer, D. 2010. Marriage and Divorce. Pages 916–917 in The Eerdmans

Stuhlmacher, P. 1989. Der Brief an Philemon. 3d ed. Zürich: Benziger; Neukirchen-