ROMANS: QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS

Romans 9:10-23 I can't believe that a loving God would purposely chose some people for eternal destruction. Is there some other meaning to these verses?

This passage poses no problem for thoroughgoing Calvinists who believe in double predestination (people are predestined to be either saved or damned). They will point out that the “fair” thing for God to do is condemn all mankind since we all sin. If He chooses to save some, it is strictly due to his grace.

Other Christians still have problems with these verses. Arminians (Christians who stress free will) go to Romans 1:18-32 with its threefold “God gave them up...” to show our responsibility for our actions (see verse 18 especially). C. S. Lewis: “There are two types of people ultimately: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' and those who say, 'My will be done.'”

A number of different Hebrew and Greek words are used to convey the idea of hardening:

hzq = to strengthen

kbd = to make heavy or unresponsive

qsh = to sharpen

poroo = to petrify

skleruno = to make dry or stiff

Sometimes the particular synonym has significance. One commentary I consulted said that one Hebrew word is used when Pharaoh hardens his own heart, and another one is used when God hardens his heart. If you check it out in an Analytical Concordance, you will see that statement doesn't hold up.

Hardening of hearts by God is first applied to enemies of the Israelites only

Pharaoh and the Egyptians (Book of Exodus; I Samuel 6:6)

Sihon, King of Heshbon (Deuteronomy 2:30)

Canaanites (Joshua 11:20)

It is only in the time of the writing prophets such as Isaiah and Jeremiah that all Israel is included. But prior to that time Israel had already hardened their own hearts. See Hebrews 3:7-13, quoting Psalm 95.

As an interesting exercise, look for all the instances in chronological order of God hardening Pharaoh's heart in Exodus 4-14. God starts out in 4:21 by saying “I will harden.” This appears to be an absolute statement, but (a) “if” clauses are sometimes missing in OT prophecies even though the prophecy is conditional upon man's reactions; (b) foreknowledge by God of future events is not really the same as predestination; and (c) it doesn't state when God is going to do it.

The next instances of hardening in the Exodus passage either say that Pharaoh hardened his own heart or that his heart was hardened (leaving the question open as to who caused it). Then we at last get to the point where God is definitely stated as the “hardener.” But even after that time, the text states, “Pharaoh sinned yet again and hardened his heart.” So we can conclude that he still had a measure of free will even at that point and could have repented if he wanted to.

This same principle of a chosen vessel for destruction still having responsibility over his own sinful actions is also seen in the case of Judas (John 13:18-19; Luke 22:21-22).

Romans 16:1-2 Since this provides clear proof that the office of deaconess existed in the early church, 

why don't many Bible-believing churches recognize it today?

Not all translations use the term “deaconess.” For example, NIV prefers the term “servant.” In verse 2 

she is also called a helper (i.e. patron or protector, probably wealthy). The actual import of her title is 

disputed:

    1. Since this is a letter of introduction, it is assumed that Phoebe was the one who actually carried 

the Letter to the Romans to them from Paul – without a woman we wouldn’t have this letter to study. 

Warren Wiersbe: “Never did a messenger carry a more important letter.”

    2. The phrase “of the church” denotes a more or less official position.

    3. In AD 111, a Roman governor reported that he had tortured two deaconesses of the church to see 

if they would reveal any secrets about the Christian’s religious rites (he suspected cannibalism).

    4. Luke 8:1-3 may provide early evidence for such a role for women in the congregation.

    5. I Timothy 3 outlines qualifications for elders and deacons. Look particularly at verse 11. The only 

other reasonable possibility seems to be that deacons’ wives are being described, but if so then “wives” 

rather than “women” would have been used, such as in the very next verse. Early Church Fathers took I 

Timothy 3:11 as giving the qualifications for deaconesses. But the fact of that little detail there leads 

some to feel that the office may not be as important as that of a deacon, but more like a deacon’s aide.

The internal structure of this portion of I Timothy indicates that a more restricted group of woman than 

just the general female population of the church is being referred to.

The Structure of I Timothy 2:1-3:13

A. Men–all (2:1-8)

B. Women–all (2:9-15)

A'. Men–bishops and deacons (3:1-10)

B'. Women–deaconesses? (3:11)

A''.Men–deacons (3:12-13)

 

Romans 16:7 Was there really a female apostle?

Until 100 years ago, this name was given as Junia (June): a woman. Even the powerful preacher and 

reputed woman-hater John Chrysostom said, “How great the wisdom of this woman must have been 

that she was even deemed worthy of the title of apostle.”

Although KJV has this translation, other translations call the person Junias, which is a masculine name. 

The problem is that the word occurs in this verse in the accusative form Junian, which can refer to a 

man or a woman. There are now different accent marks to distinguish the two, but the oldest texts did 

not have accent marks. When the scribes did start inserting accent marks, the feminine form was 

always chosen.

In fact, the male name of Junias appears nowhere in Greek or Roman literature while the female name 

Junia has been found over 250 times in Rome alone. But still the male name Junias was chosen for the 

standard Greek text of 1927 (used as the basis of most modern translations). The situation changed 

later on when Junia appeared in the 1998 United Bible Society version.

The only justification for using an otherwise unattested name Junias is the unsupported supposition that 

it might be a contraction of the known male name of Junianus.

It is interesting that one-third of the names listed in Romans 16 are women. One commentator notes, 

“Paul was a pioneer in the recognition of the function of women in Christian service and his attitude 

has been much misunderstood in this sphere.”

Romans 16:22 As the book of Romans closes someone named Tertius claims to have written the letter. I have noticed before that when closing his letters Paul would often remark to the readers to notice how he had written the letter or closing remarks with his own hand. Is this a case where Paul likely dictated this letter through Tertius? What do we know about Tertius? I don’t recall hearing this name before.

This is the only place in the New Testament where Tertius' name appears. He is undoubtedly the amanuensis (and the only one of Paul's to be specifically named) who wrote the epistle at Paul's direction, with part or all of the following verses written in Paul's own hand. The ancient secretaries were generally given some freedom to arrange the author's thoughts as they pleased, with final approval by the author, of course. Thus, Tertius may have left a considerable mark on the manuscript, all under the guidance of the Holy Spirit. This could be what is implied by the alternative reading of v. 22: “I Tertius, writing this letter in the Lord, greet you.” (NRSV Study Bible)

According to later legends, Tertius became the bishop of Iconium while Quartus (see v. 23) became bishop of what is now Beirut. It was felt by some that Tertius (“the third”) and Quartus (“the fourth”) were, respectively, the third and fourth sons of the same parents. (Joseph A. Fitzmyer, Romans, pp. 749-751)

I have read somewhere, but can't locate the reference, that Tertius and Quartus were more than likely slave names. If so, then it is instructive that Paul sandwiches the name of a prominent city official, Erastus, in between those of two slaves. Early Christianity appealed to those on all rungs of the socio-economic ladder.