Two of our most literal English translations render Romans 16:7 in remarkably different ways:


Greet Andronicus and Junias, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners, who are outstanding among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.


Greet Andronicus and Junia, my kinsmen and my fellow prisoners. They are well known to the apostles, and they were in Christ before me.

So one translation is that Junias (a man) is "outstanding among the apostles" and the other says that Junia (a woman) is "well known to the apostles". Other translations use other combinations. Looking over the NET Bible notes, it seems this is a tricky passage even in the Greek.

What's the best way to get the meaning of this greeting across in English?

7 Answers 7


It should be noted that several terms in the NT have broader and narrower meanings, such as diakonos, which can refer to Christ Himself (Rom 15:8), to an ordained role ("deacon"; see Phi 1:1; 1 Tim 3:8–12) or more generally to any servant of the church, even a "minister" (e.g. in Col 1:25, Paul refers to himself as a diakonos; cf also 1 Tim 4:6: Timothy was not a "deacon," but an evangelist who served as Paul's representative). Some references are simply ambiguous (e.g. in Col 1:7 & 4:7 [cf Eph 6:21] are Epaphras and Tychicus deacons, or is Paul simply referring to them as servants/ministers?) Paul even uses the term diakonos to refer to the civil powers (Rom 13:4). So likewise Phoebe, who may be a "deaconess" or simply a "servant" carrying out certain tasks for the church in Cenchrea (Rom 16:1).

The term apostolos is similar. Just as diakonos has a basic meaning of servant, and then gets taken over in some uses in a semi-technical sense of deacon, so too apostle has a general sense of messenger or representative, and then gets taken over in a more technical sense.

Here are some examples:

  • Christ Himself is the chief "Apostle" (Heb 3:1), which could refer to His role either as the representative of God or of men.
  • On the generally recognized "ecclesiological" level, there are "the Twelve," plus Paul as the "apostle to the Gentiles."
  • But besides them, there is Barnabas, whom Luke identifies as an "apostle" (Acts 14:14; cf 14:4), and even more broadly, Epaphroditus, whom Paul describes as an apostle of the Philippians (Phi 2:25), i.e. their messenger to serve Paul's needs, as well as men who helped with the Jerusalem collection, who in that role served as apostoloi of the churches (2 Cor 8:23).

So the question goes beyond the grammar (is this someone known to the "apostles," or someone numbered among the "apostles"?) to the broader question of what actually is meant by apostles here. Certainly Junia and Andronicus are not members of "the twelve," nor share the particular calling of Paul as a singular apostle to the Gentiles. In this regard, 1 Cor 15 seems to set these 13 apart as "apostles" as different from others. (I.e. in 1 Cor 15:9, surely when Paul writes that Christ then appeared "to all the apostles," he is referring to the Twelve.)

Some exegetes make the distinction thus: These men are the official representatives of Christ Himself, who have witnessed Him in His resurrected state, and in turn serve as authoritative messengers to the whole Church. To use a Heb term, an apostle in this sense is a shaliach of Christ. Other people, however are "apostles" of others, particularly of individual churches. Arguably, Timothy was an apostle of Paul (he is not of course identified by that title in Scripture; I'm just referring to how his role functions both in Acts and in the Pastorals).


Implicit in the question is the assumption that we are trying to produce an English translation that best captures the nuance of the original Greek without importing any doctrine. In other words, we want a "literal" translation that's useful for interpretation. There are two translation issues here and we can easily separate them and look at them individually:

Junia or Junias?

If you look at the translation of this word in isolation, the obvious translation is "Junia". Here's the NET Bible translator's note:

The feminine name Junia, though common in Latin, is quite rare in Greek (apparently only three instances of it occur in Greek literature outside Rom 16:7, according to the data in the TLG [D. Moo, Romans [NICNT], 922]). The masculine Junias (as a contraction for Junianas), however, is rarer still: Only one instance of the masculine name is known in extant Greek literature (Epiphanius mentions Junias in his Index discipulorum 125). Further, since there are apparently other husband-wife teams mentioned in this salutation (Prisca and Aquila [v. 3], Philologus and Julia [v. 15]), it might be natural to think of Junia as a feminine name. (This ought not be pressed too far, however, for in v. 12 all three individuals are women [though the first two are linked together], and in vv. 9-11 all the individuals are men.) In Greek only a difference of accent distinguishes between Junias (male) and Junia (female). If it refers to a woman, it is possible (1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles. As well, the term “prominent” probably means “well known,” suggesting that Andronicus and Junia(s) were well known to the apostles (see note on the phrase “well known” which follows).

Notice that the only reason given for preferring the masculine translation over the feminine one is that the rest of the verse might suggest a woman was called an apostle by Paul. The rather embarrassing explanations for how that could "work" are "(1) that she had the gift of apostleship (not the office), or (2) that she was not an apostle but along with Andronicus was esteemed by (or among) the apostles." Neither is a bad explanation if we presume that woman can't be apostles, but that's the a question for interpretation, not translation. Therefore: "Junia".

Among the apostles or known by them?

When it comes to Greek, I'm out of my depth and must lean on experts in the field. I've read the NET Bible note, a comment by Ben Witherington, and a book edited by John Piper and Wayne Grudem. My conclusion is that the Greek is not clear. Paul is paying the pair a high compliment, but whether he considers them Apostles or just known to the Apostles is highly debatable even among those who know best.

In this situation, the best translation preserves the ambiguity. The translation that seems to be open to either interpretation equally is "who are of note among the apostles", which is what the New King James uses. It could mean they are notable apostles or it could mean that the apostles have noted them. The phrase seems open to either reading equally.


The best doctrinally neutral translation is:

Greet Andronicus and Junia, my countrymen and my fellow prisoners, who are of note among the apostles, who also were in Christ before me.

New King James Version


As to the question if Junia was a female Apostle I think scripture itself makes the clearest sense on this when you consider Paul's writings. (1Cor.9:5 Do we not have the right to take along a believing wife, as do the other apostles and the brothers of the Lord and Cephas?) Paul had been in the ministry many years when he wrote this letter. How come he just mentions leading a wife and not a spouse? Surely if Junia was an well known female apostle, (a kinsmen) he would have worded this statement very differently. Either way when you consider what scripture clearly states about Elders and Bishops in Timothy and Titus as well. It not scriptual or logical that you would have a female apostle period. Paul clearly states in those books that men are to serve in those roles within the church. Which are lower than a apostle. But you supposedly have a female apostle who's well known serving in a higher role? So trying to use Junia as a linchpin (to women serving in higher roles of ministry) just doesn't work.


Short answer: Neither Andronicus nor Junius were apostles.


  • there were only 12 apostles
  • their names are given many times in scripture
  • neither Andronicus nor Junius appear in the scriptures except in Romans 16:7

Also, Andronicus and Junius seem to be gentile names. Junius was a celebrated Roman family name, the name of the sixth month ("June") based on the name of a Roman god named Juno. As such, they would not qualify even as a replacement of Judas:

[Act 1:20-22 ASV] (20) For it is written in the book of Psalms, Let his habitation be made desolate, And let no man dwell therein: and, His office let another take. (21) Of the men therefore that have companied with us all the time that the Lord Jesus went in and went out among us, (22) beginning from the baptism of John, unto the day that he was received up from us, of these must one become a witness with us of his resurrection.

And the fact that they replaced Judas to complete the twelve, some unnamed, unauthorized famous and infamous apostles running around is not what they envisioned.


The majority of early manuscripts do not show the slightest preference for a masculine Junius. Early Coptic traditions confirm this uniformly and the latest Nestle-Aland version leaves little choice with this interpretation. It's a feminine Junia. 𝕻46 even reads "Julia." And it appears as if every commentator on the passage before the 13th century, including Origines, read a female name there.

The usage of what is often translated as 'notable among the apostles' seems in light of Greek language usage not ambiguous at all. It means inclusively: 'part of a larger group'.

We therefore see a text that greets two more 'apostles', one male and one female.

ἀσπάσασθε Ἀνδρόνικον καὶ Ἰουνίαν, τοὺς συγγενεῖς μου καὶ, συναιχμαλώτους μου, οἵτινές εἰσιν ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις, οἳ καὶ πρὸ ἐμοῦ γέγοναν ἐν Χριστῷ. (Interlinear)

–– U.-K. Plisch: "Die Apostelin Junia: Das Exegetische Problem in Röm 16.7 im Licht von Nestle–Aland27 und der Sahidischen Überlieferung", New Testament Studies, Volume 42, Issue 03, July 1996, pp 477. 478 DOI: 10.1017/S0028688500020932,

An examination of primary usage in Greek and Latin databases confirms the traditional feminine Junia (or possibly Julia) and the time-honored attribution ‘esteemed among the apostles’.

It also demonstrates that the masculine Junias and the attribution ‘well-known to the apostles’ lack grammatical and lexical support.

Indeed, not even one first-century parallel can be adduced. Over against this is the uniform inclusive use of ἐπίσημοι ἐν plus the dative plural usage and the unbroken tradition among the Greek and Latin fathers from Origen in the third century and Ambrose in the fourth through Lombard in the twelfth century of a woman who was not only ‘notable among the apostles’ (insignes or nobiles in apostolis) but lauded as such and situated in the group of 72 that Jesus commissioned and sent out (quod fortassis ex illis septuaginta duobus apostolis fuerint et ipsi nobiles; Haymo, Rabanus Maurus, Hatto of Vercelli, Bruno of Querfurt).

Although Burer and Wallace argue for an exclusive rendering of ἐπίσημοι ἐν τοῖς ἀποστόλοις (‘well-known to the apostles’), all patristic commentators attest to an inclusive understanding (‘prominent among the apostles’). The simple fact is that if native, educated speakers of Greek understood the phrase to be inclusive and Iounian to be feminine, the burden of proof lies with those who would claim otherwise.

Indeed, the burden of proof has not been met. Not even reasonable doubt has been established, for all the extra-biblical parallels adduced support an inclusive understanding. The sole basis is a theological and functional predisposition against the naming of a woman among the first-century cadre of apostles.

Much work has been done by socio-historians in the last two decades that shows the wide-ranging roles of women in first-century Jewish and Greco-Roman culture. First-century Greco-Roman inscriptions, papyri, and statuary show that women under Roman law enjoyed far more freedoms and privileges than has traditionally been supposed. These privileges ranged from equal ownership and disposal of property, the right to terminate a marriage, and sue for child support and custody, to make a will, hold office (both political and religious), swear an oath, and give testimony.
–– Linda Belleville: "Ιουνιαν … επισημοι εν τοις αποστολοις [tr.:"Junia…notable among the apostles"]: A Re-examination of Romans 16.7 in Light of Primary Source Materials", New Testament Studies, 51, pp 231–249, 2005. doi:10.1017/S0028688505000135

For the problem at hand, a better rendering would probably be NIRV (going a bit too far)

NIV: Greet Andronicus and Junia, my fellow Jews who have been in prison with me. They are outstanding among the apostles, and they were in Christ before I was.

Yet even more clear than even a recent Catholic version would be:

NGÜ: Grüßt Andronikus und Junia, meine Landsleute, die schon vor mir an Christus geglaubt haben. Sie waren mit mir zusammen im Gefängnis und nehmen unter den Aposteln eine herausragende Stellung ein.
(Greet Andronicus and Junia, my compatriots, who believed in Christ before me. They were with me in prison, and they have a prominent position among the apostles.)


Their martyrdom also puts them in the suffering Paul saw as being part of being called apostles. We are regarded as the ...., as men to die in the arena. The attested miracles done by them (according to church history) is in keeping with demonstrating the signs of an apostle. Paul endorsing them to Rome to me indicates they were apostles, who like Paul were challenged on their credentials in various churches and therefore benefitted from this endorsement.

  • 1
    Your answer could be improved with additional supporting information. Please edit to add further details, such as citations or documentation, so that others can confirm that your answer is correct. You can find more information on how to write good answers in the help center.
    – Community Bot
    Commented Apr 7 at 13:18

The question even could be taken one step further:

Was there a reason for the apostle who wrote this letter to leave (or put) this sort of indistinctness in his greeting? If it was felt as such by readers or listeners, Paul may have intended something: Indicating that one need not be overly concerned about the use of the term apostle as an exclusive one for the Twelve or himself only.

Ob the other hand, however, he mentions the two as come to be in Christ before himself and as relatives of his, which intimates for them a vicinity to Jerusalem, where Paul as we know had relatives. So their being known to (and knowing) the Twelve was important as it proved them witnesses of the earliest days of the Apostles. In this regard they in turn could themselves be viewed as partakers of the apostolic sending, ministering then to those in Rome.

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service and acknowledge you have read our privacy policy.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.