Commentary on the
Book of Acts

Three Possibilities

The New Testament tells us nothing about what happened to Paul after the two years of house arrest recorded in the last verses of Acts. There are basically three possibilities. Without treating any of these as historical fact, we will for each give both the main evidence supporting it and the main evidence favoring doubt.

Further ministry

One strong tradition still favored by many Bible students is that when Paul came to trial in Rome after house arrest, the authorities found him innocent of all charges and released him. As a result, he enjoyed another period of fruitful ministry. Probably the most common view is that he devoted himself to revisiting churches already established, although another popular view is that he did pioneer evangelism in the Western Empire, even fulfilling his ambition to go as far as Spain. In support of this theory, they offer three arguments. The first points to ancient sources. The last two depend on inferences drawn from the Book of Acts.

1. Clement, bishop of the Roman church at the close of the first century, wrote in his epistle to the Corinthian church, "After that he [Paul] had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith, having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world."¹
   
   The Muratorian Fragment, a brief Christian document dating from the end of the second century, says, "Moreover, the acts of all the apostles were written in one book. For ‘most excellent Theophilus’ Luke compiled the individual events that took place in his presence—as he plainly shows by omitting the martyrdom of Peter as well as the departure of Paul from the city [of Rome] when he journeyed to Spain."²
   
   Eusebius, who wrote his monumental history of the Christian church in about 324 AD, gave this summary of events at the close of Paul's life, "Thus after he had made his defense [mentioned in 2 Tim. 4:16] it is said that the apostle was sent again upon the ministry of preaching, and that upon coming to the same city a second time he suffered martyrdom. . . . But these things have been adduced by us to show that Paul’s martyrdom did not take place at the time of that Roman sojourn which Luke records. It is probable indeed that as Nero was more disposed to mildness in the beginning, Paul’s defense of his doctrine was more easily received; but that when he had advanced to the commission of lawless deeds of daring, he made the apostles as well as others the subjects of his attacks."³
   
   By the end of the fourth century, Paul's release after initial imprisonment in Rome had become accepted as fact. Chrysostom wrote, "St. Paul after his residence in Rome departed to Spain."⁴ And Jerome affirmed, "Paul was dismissed by Nero,that the gospel of Christ might be preached also in the West."⁵
   
   
2. Paul's statement earlier in his career that God wanted him to evangelize Spain (Rom. 15:24) may be counted as truthful Scripture only if he eventually fulfilled God's plan.
   
   
3. The Pastoral Epistles cannot be fitted into Paul's travels before reaching Rome.

Against these arguments supporting the theory that Paul had a season of ministry after two years of Roman imprisonment, we can raise the following objections.

1. None of the early sources claiming his release surpasses doubt.
   
   
   1. The earliest text of Clement’s epistle, from the fifth century, is illegible in many passages.⁶ The next comes from 1056.⁷ The first and last statements within the quoted portion may well be authentic. "After that he [Paul] had been seven times in bonds, had been driven into exile, had been stoned, had preached in the East and in the West, he won the noble renown which was the reward of his faith . . . ; and when he had borne his testimony before the rulers, so he departed from the world." But in the reference to East and West, the author may only be dividing the empire into Greek and Roman, and the term "exile" may be his way of describing Paul's departure from Judea in bonds after the rulers of his own people rejected him, consigning him to a distant Roman prison. The middle statement, "having taught righteousness unto the whole world and having reached the farthest bounds of the West," may, however, be the work of a late copyist who sought to clarify the preceding statement by bringing it more into line with popular legend. To resolve the matter would require new examination of the earliest text.
      
      
   2. The Muratorian Fragment contains numerous errors, at least some based on unreliable tradition. It lists Paul's epistles to local churches in the presumed order they were written, giving Colossians as the fourth, Galatians as the fifth, Thessalonians (presumably a reference to both First and Second) as the sixth, and Ephesians as the second.⁸ In fact, Thessalonians was probably second after Galatians, and Ephesians and Colossians were probably last. Along with Jude and two epistles of John, the Fragment represents the Wisdom of Solomon as "counted in the Catholic Church"—that is, as canonical, although Protestants now relegate it to the Jewish Apocrypha—and alleges that it was "written by the friends of Solomon in his honor."⁹ But this book of wise sayings is clearly an intertestamental work, probably deriving from the Jewish community in Alexandria during the first or second century BC.¹⁰ The Fragment then categorizes two more works as writings "we receive"—in other words, as canonical also.¹¹ The first is the Book of Revelation. The second is the Apocalypse of Peter, a second-century work full of strange fantasies concerning the joys of heaven and the punishments of hell.¹² Yet the Fragment admits that some churches refuse to use it in public services.¹³ One writing that the Fragment recommends only for private reading is the Shepherd of Hermas, which it claims, perhaps in an effort to downgrade its value, had been written "very recently," when Pius was Bishop of Rome.¹⁴ Reliable tradition places Pius in this position during approximately the years AD 140 to 154.¹⁵ Yet the Shepherd speaks of Clement as a living church leader.¹⁶ On the assumption that this Clement was the prominent bishop of Rome near the end of the first century, many modern scholars favor dating the Shepherd during the same period.¹⁷
      
      
   3. As primary justification for crediting Paul with a later ministry, Eusebius cites Second Timothy (2 Tim. 4:16–17). According to his interpretation, "delivered out of the mouth of the lion" means that Nero acquitted Paul of all charges, and "that all the Gentiles might hear" means that God delivered Paul for the purpose of carrying the gospel to regions as yet unreached, such as Spain. Eusebius therefore relies on a doubtful reading of Scripture rather than on any actual record.
      
      
2. Going to Spain after visiting Rome was indeed God's plan for Paul, but whether he gained this objective was always contingent on his obedience along the way.  We have argued at length that his disregard of the Lord's clear direction to stay out of Jerusalem may have disqualified him from a season of fruitful ministry near the Western bounds of the empire.  Nevertheless, the church still possessed his declaration of intent to reach Spain (Rom. 15:24), and this, rather than true memory, may have spawned the tradition that he actually went there.
   
   
3. Also in this commentary we have shown that the Pastoral Epistles fit naturally into the sequence of events recorded in Acts: First Timothy coming soon after Paul left his lengthy stay in Ephesus, Titus belonging to the interval between his departure from this coworker and his arrest in Jerusalem, and Second Timothy er merging from his house arrest in Rome. Attempts to place First Timothy after the early 60s, as many scholars do, simply disregard its many allusions to Timothy's pronounced youthfulness (1 Tim. 1:18; 4:8, 12–15; 5:1–2). By that time, Timothy would have been in his early or middle thirties if Paul took him as an associate when he was about twenty (see Appendix 1). He was still young enough to be warned against youthful lusts (2 Tim. 2:22), but not so young that many people might view him as too immature and inexperienced for a position of leadership.
   
   
4. Against the theory that Paul had a season of ministry after two years of imprisonment in Rome, we can raise a further objection. On two occasions near the end of Paul's journeys, the Lord intervened to save his life, then revealed to Paul either by His own mouth or a messenger's mouth why he had been spared. The Lord said to Paul after his hearing before the Sanhedrin: "Be of good cheer, Paul: for as thou hast testified of me in Jerusalem, so must thou bear witness also at Rome" (Acts 23:11). When Paul and all his fellow travelers on a ship to Rome seemed near to drowning, an angel assured him, "Fear not, Paul; thou must be brought before Caesar: and, lo, God hath given thee all them that sail with thee" (Acts 27:24). Both messages underscored one unfulfilled purpose in Paul's life—to witness for Christ in Rome. The implication was that once the purpose was fulfilled, miraculous deliverances would no longer be necessary. The time would have arrived when God could take home his worn and weary servant.

Execution

If Paul came to trial at the end of his two years under house arrest and was not acquitted of all charges, the first question that presents itself is this. For what crime or crimes was he pronounced guilty? The answer is that there were no legal restraints on Nero's rulings. He could dictate whatever punishment he liked for whatever reasons he liked.

In 64, probably about one year after Paul came to trial, Nero unleashed horrific persecution against the church in Rome. A great fire had recently swept through the city, and many residents whispered that Nero himself had set it. To divert suspicion, Nero blamed the Christians and decreed that being a member of their religious sect was a treasonous crime punishable by death. The forms of death he inflicted on those judged guilty were gruesome. To entertain guests at a great banquet held in his private gardens, he ordered Christians to be fastened on poles, covered with pitch, and used as living torches. He dressed others in the skins of wild animals and then released dogs to tear them apart. The followers of Christ became his scapegoats because he shared a common prejudice that such people were scum of the earth.¹⁸ If he was brimming with so much contempt for Christians in 64, it is not at all unlikely that just a year earlier, in 63, he felt that their leading evangelist, Paul, deserved a harsh sentence.

Some scholars have suggested that Nero's hatred for Christians may have derived in part from his wife Poppea. According to Josephus, she was a "religious woman."¹⁹ The context of this remark leaves little doubt that he viewed her as particularly sympathetic to the religion of the Jews. The proof he offers is that in a dispute between Jewish leaders and King Agrippa, her influence led to victory for the Jewish leaders. They were allowed to build a wall shielding the Temple compound from observation by King Agrippa when he looked out from the dining room of his elevated palace nearby. If she was inclined to side with Jewish leaders in this dispute, very likely she would have supported their desire to eliminate Paul. Yet, of course, we ultimately do not know whether she was in any measure responsible for Paul’s fate.

One possible outcome of Paul's trial is that Nero or the Roman court acting on his behalf condemned the apostle to die immediately. A longstanding tradition in the church is that he finally met his death when he was beheaded by Roman authorities.²⁰ The oldest specimen of this tradition appears in the Acts of Paul,²¹ an apocryphal work dating from about AD 160.²² Although superficially reverent, it is badly tarnished by many foolish impossibilities.²³ Yet murder by decapitation must be conceded as Paul’s likely fate, because, as a Roman citizen, he was exempt from modes of execution that were crueler and more of a public spectacle.

Still, neither in Scripture nor in other early writings do we find any grounds for supposing that he died right after his two years of imprisonment.

Further imprisonment

Perhaps the true outcome of Paul's trial before Caesar was a jail sentence, sending him to confinement not in a private house, but in a secure prison, even a dungeon. Perhaps only after more time passed did Nero take a harsher view of Paul.

Critical clues as to Paul's future when he wrote Second Timothy appear in his closing words: "At my first answer no man stood with me, but all men forsook me: I pray God that it may not be laid to their charge. Notwithstanding the Lord stood with me, and strengthened me; that by me the preaching might be fully known, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion" (2 Tim. 4:16–17). We will assume that his first answer—that is, first defense—refers to a hearing preliminary to the actual trial that would terminate his house arrest.

The metaphor speaking of his deliverance from a lion's mouth favors two conclusions.

1. His judge at this first defense was Nero himself, certainly the epitome of a merciless predator. Although Nero may not have normally taken an interest in a case such as Paul's, the devil would not have overlooked a chance to put his favorite puppet before the apostle, confronting him with a vicious face and an ugly roar that expressed the devil's own hatred for the man of God. Jerome believed that to call Nero a lion was a suitable comparison.²⁴
2. The issue addressed at his first defense was whether he was truly a Roman citizen. That established, he was exempt from being thrown to the lions.

Also at the end of Second Timothy, Paul tells his son in the faith that his life has come to the point of climax: "For I am now ready to be offered, and the time of my departure is at hand. I have fought a good fight, I have finished my course, I have kept the faith: Henceforth there is laid up for me a crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous judge, shall give me at that day: and not to me only, but unto all them also that love his appearing" (2 Tim. 4:6–8). This assessment of his case shows that at his first defense, the attitude of the court left no doubt in Paul's mind as to his future. At his actual trial he would be pronounced guilty, and afterward, either sooner or later, he would be executed.

Yet, on balance, further clues in Second Timothy suggest that he expected his fate immediately after the trial to be no worse than imprisonment. He says, "The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments" (2 Tim. 4:13), and "Do thy diligence to come before winter" (2 TIm. 4:21). Both requests seem to arise from expectation that at least through the coming winter, he will be in jail. The first anticipates cold surroundings, perhaps even a dungeon. The second points to isolation, for he will need something to do, and the best provision for a man like Paul will be manuscripts to read or revise.

If Paul was sentenced to prison at his last trial, we have no information bearing on how long he remained there, though we can accept as virtual certainty that he did not survive Nero's mad onslaught against the church in AD 64.²⁵ Yet, in all fairness, we must finish this discussion by admitting that like all competing theories, the theory that Paul endured imprisonment after his trial lacks a foundation in persuasive evidence. As many scholars have agreed, Paul's fate after the close of events recorded in Acts is best summarized by a big question mark.