Romans 16:7

Salute Andronicus and Juntas, my kinsmen, and fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also have been in Christ before me.

Juntas ... a name like the English "Jean," is either masculine or feminine; but the coupling of both names here signifies that both were men. As Lenski said:

This is Junias, a man, not Junia (Julia), a woman, wife or sister of Andronicus.[13]

Kinsmen ... as applied here to Andronicus and Junias, and others in this chapter, is frequently alleged to mean racial or Jewish kinsmen, rather than a family connection with Paul; but, if that view is correct, why was not this word applied to Prisca and Aquila who were also Jews This consideration alone is enough to justify understanding this as a reference to some of Paul's family, perhaps cousins or uncles. Lard agreed with this, thus:

They were Paul's real kin, according to the flesh, and not his kin merely in the loose sense of being of the same tribe or nation.[14]

There is a problem in this view, that being the question of why Paul came to mention two of his kin in this verse, another in Romans 16:11, and three more in Romans 16:21, prompting the query by Lenski:

Did Paul have six relatives of the family in Rome; and did he scatter them throughout his list of greetings instead of greeting them together in a group?[15]

A careful study of this chapter reveals excellent, even compelling, reasons for Paul's deployment of the names of his kinsfolk throughout this chapter and proves Lenski's questioning of it to be wrong. For example, Lenski's implication that Paul should have grouped them all together ignores the fact that three of the kinsfolk mentioned in Romans 16:21, Lucian, Jason, and Sosipater, were not receiving Paul's greetings at all but were joined with Paul as sending greetings! Furthermore, the separation of the names of Andronicus and Junias here from that of Herodian in Romans 16:11 resulted from the fact that Herodian, probably a slave, was more logically included with the other slaves of the household of Aristobulus. Paul's recognition of this enslaved kinsman by singling him out and stating his relationship is as tender and beautiful a thing as may be found in all Paul's letters, and was a most effective way for Paul to have identified himself with all the Christians who were slaves (as so many were). It was perfectly in line with this desire to be one with all the Christians that Paul referred to himself in the very beginning of this letter as a "bondslave" of Christ (Romans 1:1).

By his meaningful and sympathetic identification of himself with a kinsman who was bound to Aristobulus, Paul showed his utter disdain for those social distinctions so dear to the world. On the other hand, if Paul had pulled the name of Herodian out of the list of the other slaves and included it in this verse along with those of Andronicus and Junias, such an action could have been construed as due to shame on Paul's part to acknowledge the true status of his slave kinsman, Herodian.

Thus the problem of the separation of these names does not exist. It would have been impossible to have grouped them all together, due to some being senders and others recipients of greetings, and the further removal of Herodian to a separate listing was demanded by the circumstance of his slavery.

My fellow-prisoners ... reveals a truth not otherwise recorded in the New Testament. When, where, and how were these kinsfolk fellow-prisoners with Paul? God knows. This does not necessarily mean that Andronicus and Junias were imprisoned at the same time and place with Paul, but that they were closely associated with him in such trials. Paul's sufferings and imprisonments were much more extensive than those detailed in the New Testament, as proved by his own summary of them (2 Corinthians 11:23f), indicating that there were indeed ample opportunities for these two kinsmen to have suffered with Paul through one, or some, of his imprisonments; and, regardless of the possibility of other meanings, the likelihood is that these kinsmen were actually in jail with Paul on some occasion, or occasions, when the great apostle suffered for the faith.

Who are of note among the apostles ... is a reference to the reputation of Andronicus and Junias who were known and respected within the circle of the twelve apostles themselves. This meaning is required by the facts: (1) of there at this time never having been an apostle in Rome, and (2) of Paul's exclusive use of "apostle" in its primary meaning of himself, or the twelve apostles. Hodge stated that the word "apostle"

is never used in Paul's writing except in strict official sense.[16]

The reasons for these kinsmen of Paul's being so favorably known among the twelve apostles probably were lodged in the sufferings they had undergone, as mentioned here, and in the fact of their having been such a long while faithful members of the church, having preceded Paul in their acceptance of Christianity.

Who also have been in Christ before me ... Lard thought that:

These very two men, Andronicus and Junias, were not improbably among those strangers in Rome (Acts 2:10); and at that same Pentecost they might have become Christians, and there have formed the acquaintance with the apostles. This would account for their being "of note" with the apostles, and also for their having been "in Christ" before Paul. Besides, their case may throw no little light on the question, By whom was the gospel first preached in Rome? In them, we may have a clue to the answer.[17]

In Christ ... is used here as the equivalent of being a Christian and shows that none were ever considered Christians by an apostle unless they had been baptized into Christ, that being the manner he himself had stated to be the way of entering Christ (Romans 6:1-4).

[13] R. C. H. Lenski, loc. cit.

[14] Moses E. Lard, Commentary on Paul's Letter to the Romans (Cincinnati, Ohio: Christian Board of Publication, 1914), p. 456.

[15] R. C. H. Lenski, op. cit., p. 906.

[16] Charles Hodge, op. cit., p. 449.

[17] Moses E. Lard, loc. cit.