Paul’s Response to the Shame and Pain of Imprisonment in 2 Timothy

By Gregory S. MaGee

[Gregory S. MaGee is a Ph.D. student, Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, Deerfield, Illinois.]

A wealth of information on Roman imprisonment exists in ancient sources. Books by Rapske, Wansink, and Cassidy report on extensive research in these primary sources and apply this research to a better understanding of Paul’s imprisonments.[1] It is surprising, therefore, that recent prominent commentaries on 2 Timothy largely bypass this material when assessing Paul’s experience of confinement reflected in the letter. A number of commentators do not interact significantly with either the primary or secondary sources on Roman incarceration.[2] The purpose of this article is to demonstrate how an understanding of Roman imprisonment as portrayed in various ancient sources contributes to an elucidation of Paul’s predicament and outlook in 2 Timothy.

It will be shown that Paul’s second letter to Timothy exhibits characteristics of the shame and hardship of confinement that are illustrated and confirmed by other ancient depictions of prison life. Within this context, though, Paul resisted societal pressures and refused to be ashamed, since his captivity was for the sake of the gospel.

Paul’s Imprisonment in Historical Context

In this section the focus is on how Paul’s imprisonment in 2 Timothy corresponds to the historical context of Acts and Roman judicial norms.

2 Timothy and Acts

Many scholars do not recognize the authenticity of the Pastoral Epistles, and so they see no need to fit the events of 2 Timothy into the framework of Paul’s ministry as recounted in Acts. A rejection of the Pauline origin of 2 Timothy sometimes arises from the perspective of the “school of Paul” theory, in which later disciples of Paul supposedly perpetuated a common image of the imprisoned apostle in Acts, Ephesians, Colossians, and 2 Timothy.[3] This theory will not be examined in detail in this article, but one problem with the theory should be noted. The degree of specificity and severity in the descriptions of Paul’s pain and shame from imprisonment in 2 Timothy finds no parallel in the other supposed later reflections on Paul’s ministry. The portrait of Paul’s confinement in 2 Timothy departs significantly from the milder image of Paul the prisoner in Acts, Ephesians, and Colossians. As will be seen later in this article, the author of 2 Timothy betrayed an understanding of prison life that conforms closely to the actual stresses of prison life in the ancient world. The detailed description of Paul’s prison environment, with its physical and emotional effects, reflects Paul’s actual experience and not an idealized memory of the situation.[4]

Assuming that 2 Timothy is Paul’s own account of his actual experience, the letter most likely portrays a stage in his life that occurred after the narrated events of Acts. Mullins’s attempt to locate the 2 Timothy imprisonment in Corinth, between Acts 20:3 and 20:4, faces several difficulties.[5] First, Paul’s harsh characterization of his confinement in 2 Timothy suggests a serious, extended imprisonment that threatened to result in his death (2 Tim. 1:16–18; 4:6, 9–17). The narrative in Acts, however, mentions that Paul stayed in Corinth three months, leaving little time for a significant incarceration. In addition, Mullins must offer an unlikely interpretation of 2 Timothy 1:17, where the clause that indicates Onesiphorus found Paul follows a participial phrase locating Onesiphorus in Rome. Mullins surmises that Onesiphorus came to Corinth after visiting Rome, rather than searching for Paul in Rome while in that city.[6] The reference to Rome in 2 Timothy 1:17, the absence of any reference to Corinth in the letter, and the lack of evidence for an imprisonment in Paul’s three-month stay in Corinth undermine Mullins’s hypothesis.

The portrait of Paul’s Roman imprisonment in Acts 28 also differs quite sharply from the picture painted in 2 Timothy. Acts 28:16 depicts Paul being attended by a lone soldier. According to verse 30 Paul was allowed relative freedom to preach the gospel within the confines of a private dwelling (ἐν ἰδίῳ μισθώματι). Rapske summarizes that “Acts 28 implies that Paul is permitted a remarkably light custody.”[7] In 2 Timothy, on the other hand, Paul highlighted his suffering and shameful condition (1:8, 12; 2:9; 4:6). In addition Lampe correctly observes that several differences exist between the location of Paul’s companions in 2 Timothy and their location in the account in Acts. This is problematic for those who attempt to harmonize the two accounts.[8] The evidence requires that the two custodies be differentiated.[9] Chronologically the Roman imprisonment recorded in 2 Timothy fits best after the events in Acts.[10]

Paul and the Roman Justice System

It is difficult to acquire a comprehensive picture of Roman imprisonment during Paul’s day because of the occasional character of the sources and their varying dates of origin.[11] Still the nature of Paul’s confinement becomes clearer when viewed against the overall framework of the Roman criminal justice system. The most complete resource for this subject is The Digest of Justinian, a sixth-century A.D. codification of positions taken by Roman legal authorities in previous generations.[12] In the Digest Ulpian and Callistratus, two prominent jurists from the early third century, offered their assessment on the range of appropriate punishments to be delivered by governors. Punishment was distinguished from the period of confinement leading up to the verdict.

Ulpian delineated his prescribed categories for punishment in descending order of severity. “Now there are certain punishments that may take away life, or inflict slavery, or deprive of citizenship, or include either exile or corporal punishment, or a fine with infamy, or any degradation from a rank, or the forbidding of a particular action. Life is taken away if, say, a person is condemned to be put to death with the sword.”[13] This passage by Ulpian sheds light on the type of punishments commonly enacted in the Roman Empire, along with their perceived level of severity.

Callistratus followed with his description of the various kinds of capital punishment in particular. “The stages of capital punishment are more or less as follows. The extreme penalty is held to be condemnation to the gallows. There is also burning alive; this, however though deservedly included in the term ‘extreme penalty,’ is yet regarded as following after the first, because this class of punishment was devised at a later time. Also there is beheading.

Then, the next punishment after death is sentencing to the mines; after that, deportation to an island.”[14]

These punishments listed by Ulpian and Callistratus highlight the end result for the convict. Church tradition records that Paul was beheaded at the end of his imprisonment, in accord with one of the punishments indicated by Callistratus.[15] Though this tradition is in question, Paul’s alleged punishment would fit within the range of allowable Roman punishments.

Interestingly, however, imprisonment as a form of punishment is not listed in these sources. According to Ulpian incarceration was prohibited as a form of punishment, being reserved for confining accused and condemned criminals in custody. “Governors are in the habit of condemning men to be kept in prison or in chains, but they ought not to do this; for punishments of this type are forbidden. Prison indeed ought to be employed for confining men, not for punishing them.”[16] Ulpian mentioned the levels of custody for prisoners awaiting punishment: “The proconsul normally determines the custody of accused persons, whether someone is to be lodged in prison, handed over to the military, entrusted to sureties, or even his own recognizances.”[17] Thus it is not surprising that Paul awaited the outcome of his trials during his prison stay. In 2 Timothy 4:16 Paul referred to a first defense, implying that a second perhaps conclusive defense would follow (see also v. 6). His painful confinement, not designed to last indefinitely, threatened to end in capital punishment, in accord with the guidelines of the Roman justice system.

The Shame of Imprisonment

Ancient sources attest to the shame of imprisonment, illuminating Paul’s remarks on shame in 2 Timothy. Paul identified the strong cultural aversion to prisoners but sought to counteract the shameful stigma and to dissuade Timothy from becoming distressed at his potentially shameful association with Paul.

Ancient Witnesses to the Shame of Imprisonment

Greco-Roman sources pointed to the disgrace of imprisonment in three primary ways. First, they marked the general shame associated with being enchained; second, they highlighted the particular affront of imprisonment to people of high status; and third, they saw shame reflected by the behavior of the prisoners’ companions.

First, the physical chains worn by most prisoners carried negative connotations.[18] Ulpian wrote that chains were considered a mark of reproach. “If anyone has been deported by a person having the right to deportation or registered [on the list of deportees], he shall not suffer fetters nor any other affront which is suffered by a person who had acquiesced in his sentence.”[19] Similarly the general and future emperor Titus persuaded Vespasian to undo the stigma of Josephus’s chains. “Justice demands, father, that Josephus should lose his disgrace along with his fetters. If instead of loosing, we sever his chains, he will be as though he had never been in bonds at all.”[20] Both of these passages arose from the point of view of officials responsible for enforcing the law. According to both leaders, chains branded the captive as a criminal, separated from civilized society.

Second, the ignominy of imprisonment stood out more starkly when a noble or high-standing person was placed in confinement. Several writers emphasized the jarring contrast between the honorable person and his surrounding prison population and environment. The imprisonment of Lucius Scipio (187 B.C.) threatened to place “this most distinguished man . . . among thieves of the night and brigands.”[21] In the first century B.C. Cicero reported that rhetorician Apollonius Molon, “a well-to-do man” and a “worthy man,” became “a ragged prisoner in a dark and dirty prison.”[22] Cassius Dio reported the plight of the prefect of the praetorian guard Sejanus (A.D. 31): “The man whom at dawn they had escorted to the senate-hall as a superior being, they were now dragging to prison as if no better than the worst; on him whom they had previously thought worthy of many crowns, they now laid bonds.”[23] Josephus wrote about Herod Agrippa’s humiliated state of mind after being chained in military custody. “They led him away a prisoner in his crimson robes. The heat was intense and, since he had not had much wine with his meal, he was parched with thirst. His feelings were divided between this distress and the shock to his self-esteem. . . . there he stood in chains in front of the palace together with many other prisoners, and had leaned against a tree in his despondency.”[24] In each case the prisoner of high status was portrayed as descending to the lowest point of humiliation. This juxtaposition of nobility and degradation had the effect of emphasizing the shame of imprisonment.

Third, the shameful effects of incarceration influenced the prisoner’s acquaintances, as reflected by the occasional desertion of friends in the wake of their comrade’s imprisonment. When Antiphilus (mid-second century A.D.) was implicated in the crime of his slave, “nobody came to his assistance; on the contrary, even his erstwhile friends turned their backs upon him.”[25] Livy noted the sad fact that “Lucius Scipio was being taken into prison and no one was coming to his assistance.”[26] The phenomenon of fickle friends at the time of captivity was common enough to elicit the warning from Roman statesman Seneca (died A.D. 65) that some people abandoned their friends “at the first rattle of a chain.”[27] The negative connotations of imprisonment tended to drive away acquaintances who wanted to avoid being stained by association with criminals. Even among Christians the loyalty of friends in the face of imprisonment was not taken for granted. In the early second century A.D. Ignatius, bishop of Antioch, who was en route to probable martyrdom in Rome, showed special appreciation for the support of Polycarp, who “loved” Ignatius’s “bonds.”[28] Ignatius realized that Polycarp had continued to identify with Ignatius despite the shame stemming from imprisonment. These excerpts illustrate that the desertion or potential desertion of friends was one component of the overall sense of shame surrounding imprisonment.

The Shame of Imprisonment in 2 Timothy

The shame of imprisonment emerges as an important theme in 2 Timothy, with characteristics echoing the opinions of common society. Recognizing the importance of the culture of honor and shame in the ancient Near East, one lexicon defines the word for shame in 2 Timothy (ἐπαισχύνομαι) as experiencing “a painful feeling or sense of loss of status because of some particular event or activity.”[29] For Paul in 2 Timothy the particular event expected to bring shame was imprisonment. But he rejected the prevailing mindset that viewed imprisonment as a cause for shame. Since Paul’s confinement was endured for the sake of the gospel, it was not shameful in God’s sight.[30] Corrigan notes a similar reversal of honor and shame in Paul’s earlier letters, in which the apostle rejected the rules that governed the honor/shame “game” in society and switched to a new game. Paul was convinced that the gospel of Christ overturned standard categories and brought honor to what was typically considered shameful.[31]

In this light Paul urged Timothy to join with him in associating himself with the gospel in spite of the risks of shameful imprisonment. After warning Timothy against timidity in 2 Timothy 1:7, Paul pointed out the way to show courage in verse 8: “Do not be ashamed [μὴ οὖν ἐπαισχυνθῇς] of the testimony of our Lord or of me His prisoner.” This exhortation reflects the significant degree of shame attached to imprisonment, along with the corresponding temptation to avoid that shame by abandoning the cause of the shameful captivity. But Paul encouraged Timothy to adopt God’s view of the shamelessness of a gospel-generated imprisonment. This meant that Timothy would need to join Paul in “suffering for the gospel” (v. 8) and to see such suffering as a noble thing. Paul recognized that Timothy’s involvement with him and his ministry brought the danger of suffering under the hands of the Romans, but Paul challenged Timothy to choose God’s message in spite of the risk to his status and safety.

Paul noted that some Christians shunned the shame of Paul’s imprisonment while others embraced it. He pointed to examples of Christians who had been willing to embrace the shame of imprisonment for the sake of fidelity to God’s message. Paul himself had already suffered under the power of Roman authority, but he rejected the shame associated with imprisonment, insisting, “I am not ashamed” (v. 12). Far from viewing his confinement as disgraceful, Paul was willing to endure suffering as a criminal for the sake of the gospel (see 2:9).[32] Suffering for the gospel became a badge of honor, even though Paul, a Roman citizen and educated religious leader, had been marked as a criminal. Likewise Onesiphorus “was not ashamed” of Paul’s chains (ἄλυσιν), evidenced by the way he had eagerly identified himself with Paul the prisoner (1:16–17). In light of the strong connotations of shame attached to prisoners, Collins notes that “Onesiphorus’s lack of shame in going to visit Paul was clearly countercultural.”[33]

On the other hand certain Christians had distanced themselves from Paul because of the risk of associating with his imprisonment. Phygelus, Hermogenes, and other Christians in Asia had deserted Paul during his time of need (1:15). Later in the letter (4:10) Paul even mentioned Demas, his coworker from the past (Col. 4:14), who had deserted him. Among other things the apostle’s reference to Demas “loving the present world” indicated Demas’s preference to salvage his status in society rather than face the potential repercussions of maintaining his affiliation with Paul. Apparently Demas had yielded to the Roman perspective on the shame of chains rather than adopting God’s perspective.

Paul pointed out that when he had defended himself at his first defense, he had felt abandoned by other Christians (2 Tim. 4:16). Perhaps in such a public forum Paul’s friends had been unwilling to associate with him on account of his being branded as a criminal. This would conform well to the passages from the wider Roman world, in which the shame of imprisonment is verified by examples of acquaintances withdrawing from the scene.

The Pain of Imprisonment

In the Roman Empire confinement carried more than just shameful connotations. Prisoners struggled with daily physical hardships as well. Though the severity of captivity differed according to time and location, the snapshots of prison reality show a bleak, grueling existence. As a result assistance from loyal friends played an important role in sustaining the health and spirits of the prisoner. Against this backdrop Paul’s statements in 2 Timothy resonate with a deeply personal tone and pressing sense of immediacy.

Ancient Witnesses to the Pain of Imprisonment

Extrabiblical sources depict grim conditions in prison life. Prisons varied in the severity of their living environments, from free prisons on one end of the scale to dungeons on the other. Philostratus gave the following description of a free prison experienced by Apollonius Tyana in the time of Domitian (A.D. 51-96). “There were about fifty people in this prison. Some of them were ill, others were despondent and resigned, others faced death boldly, others groaned for their children, parents, and marriages.”[34] Philostratus’s portrayal of the philosopher and wonder-worker Apollonius, written more than a century after his life, must be studied with some caution, though at the very least, Philostratus was presenting a common perception of prison life at his time. The conditions in the free prison were relatively mild, as seen by the escalation of punishment inflicted on Apollonius later, with Domitian “shackling him in the company of the most hardened criminals.”[35]

A prisoner’s chains increased his hardship. This is seen in Philostratus’s account, after Apollonius had been transferred from the free prison to a harsher area. Pointing to Apollonius’s chains, an antagonistic man asked him, “How is your leg taking the pain?”[36] Herod Agrippa’s ordeal, as described by Josephus, also showed how chains differentiated one type of confinement from another. Toward the end of his captivity Agrippa was punished by a soldier for alleged trickery. “He ordered the manacles to be put on Agrippa, though he had previously taken them off, and a stricter guard to be kept than before. Such was the wretched condition of Agrippa through the night.”[37] In The Digest of Justinian Ulpian revealed the role of chains in making confinement more difficult. “There is a punishment which takes away freedom; of this kind is, say, condemnation to the mines or the opus metalli. . . . The only difference between those condemned to the mines and those to the opus metalli lies in their chains, that those condemned to the mines are weighed down with heavier chains and those to the opus metalli with lighter.”[38] As seen in these examples, physical chains contributed to the burden of the experience of incarceration.

Other passages portray the pain of captivity in other ways. Cicero described it this way: “There is the darkness—the chains—the prison—the tortures of being shut up, of being shut off from the sight of parent and child, nay, from the drawing of free breath and looking upon the common light of day. . . . From all these horrors Apollonius did at long last buy his escape, by now a tortured and miserable wreck.”[39] In this passage Cicero emphasized the absence of freedom, family, light, and fresh air. Tertullian drew on prison imagery to highlight the contrast between prison conditions and the attitudes of Christian prisoners. “It is full of darkness, but ye yourselves are light; it has bonds, but God has made you free. Unpleasant exhalations are there, but you are an odour of sweetness.”[40] Plutarch depicted imprisoned Philopoemen (early second century B.C.) as “lying down wrapped in his soldier’s cloak, not sleeping, but overwhelmed with trouble and grief.”[41] The prisoner used his coat for warmth, but nothing was able to comfort his troubled emotions.

Two excerpts reflect the extent of suffering experienced in the worst cases. First, the harsh realities of incarceration emerge clearly in Lucian’s second century A.D. work Toxaris. The following is Lucian’s description of the prisoner Antiphilus’s pitiable state.

He was sickened at length and was ill, as might be expected in view of the fact that he slept on the ground and at night could not even stretch out his legs, which were confined in the stocks. By day, to be sure, the collar was sufficient, together with manacles upon one hand; but for the night he had to be fully secured by his bonds. Moreover, the stench of the room and the stifling air (since many were confined in the same place, cramped for room, and scarcely able to draw breath), the clash of iron, the scanty sleep—all these conditions were difficult and intolerable for such a man, unwonted to them and unschooled to a life so rigorous.[42]

This material shows that Antiphilus endured physical agony from cramped quarters, restrictive chains, foul odors, and poor air.

Second, on the bitter extreme of confinement, Diodorus described the bleak dungeon of king Perseus of Macedonia (mid-second century B.C.). “This prison is a deep underground dungeon, no larger than a nine-couch room, dark, and noisome from the large numbers committed to the place, who were men under condemnation on capital charges, for most of this category were incarcerated there at that period. With so many shut up in such close quarters, the poor wretches were reduced to the physical appearance of brutes, and since their food and everything pertaining to their other needs was all foully commingled, a stench so terrible assailed anyone who drew near that it could scarcely be endured.”[43] As is clear from the passage, the worst prison environments, reserved for “capital” offenders, had the effect of dehumanizing the captives. The varieties of imprisonment covered a broad spectrum of intensity. The experience of physical and emotional pain, however, was common to them all.

The Need for Help from Friends

The despicable surroundings of prison life created the need for assistance from the outside if prisoners expected to be able to endure the experience. Faithful friends helped strengthen both the body and the spirit of the prisoner. Antonia and other friends supported Agrippa during his captivity.

She gained from Macro the following concessions for him, that the soldiers who were to guard him and that the centurion who would be in charge of them and would also be handcuffed to him should be of humane character, that he should be permitted to bathe every day and receive visits from his freedmen and friends, and that he should have other bodily comforts too. His friends Silas and two of his freedmen, Marsyas and Stoecheus, visited him bringing him his favourite viands and doing whatever service they could. They brought him garments that they pretended to sell, but, when night came, they made him a bed with the connivance of the soldiers, who had Macro’s orders to do so. These things went on for six months.[44]

This example reveals the helpers’ practical service to the imprisoned, as well as their attempts to boost their spirits through familiar comforts and companionship. The friends’ help consisted of arranging for fair treatment and visits from friends and providing adequate food and clothing.

Lucian described the spirited support the Christian community rendered to Peregrinus (mid-second century A.D.), who at the time was a confessing Christian. “The Christians, regarding the incident as a calamity, left nothing undone in the effort to rescue him. Then, as this was impossible, every other form of attention was shown him, not in a casual way but with assiduity; and from the very break of day aged widows and orphan children could be seen waiting near the prison, while their officials even slept inside with him after bribing the guards. Then elaborate meals were brought in, and sacred books of theirs were read aloud.”[45] A number of helpers became engaged in Peregrinus’s cause, addressing fundamental needs such as food as well as less tangible goals such as spiritual edification. Such fervent zeal in serving was perhaps motivated by Jesus’ own words in Matthew 25:36, 43–45, which prioritized taking care of prisoners as an act of service to the Lord.

The crucial significance of support from acquaintances is well illustrated by a passage in Lucian’s Toxaris that used an example of serving a prisoner to portray the ideal of Greek friendship. In the account Demetrius became aware of Antiphilus’s ordeal and sought to lighten his imprisoned friend’s crushing burden. “Each afternoon he remained with Antiphilus, keeping him in heart; and when night overtook him, he slept just in front of the prison door.”[46] Later, after the free Demetrius was forbidden from staying with Antiphilus, he implicated himself so that he might continue to sustain his friend as a fellow prisoner. “Then indeed, more than any other time, he displayed the affection which he had for him, neglecting his own adversities (though he himself had fallen ill) but taking care that Antiphilus should sleep as well as possible and suffer less distress.”[47] Demetrius’s consistent presence and practical support confirm the vital role played by the acquaintances of a prisoner. Friends helped keep the captive from slipping into further emotional and physical decline.

The Pain Endured by Paul

Second Timothy reveals that Paul was enduring physical and emotional suffering as a result of his imprisonment. Aware of Paul’s dire straits, friends had been offering assistance, though more help continued to be needed. Such a reality conforms well to the overall picture of Roman incarceration examined in the previous section.

Numerous clues signal that Paul’s imprisonment was exacting an emotional and physical toll on him. Several times he connected the ideas of suffering and imprisonment (2 Tim. 1:8, 12; 2:9). Though it has been contended that the mention of chains (1:16) is metaphorical,[48] part of Paul’s hardship likely consisted of being chained with painful bonds. Paul’s grouping of himself with criminals (2:9) further supports the idea that he bore actual physical chains.[49]

In contrast to Paul’s accessibility as depicted in his house arrest at the end of Acts, 2 Timothy implies that Onesiphorus could not easily locate Paul’s prison (1:17).[50] Out of public view Paul would have been more likely to face unpredictable or below-standard conditions.

In addition Paul’s need for his cloak (4:13), coupled with the desire to see Timothy quickly (v. 9), before winter (v. 21), attest to the difficult conditions Paul faced. The mention of a cloak brings to mind the excerpt from Plutarch, noted above, in which Philopoemen used his coat as a blanket while resting.[51] In a similar way Paul likely recognized that his cloak would provide relief from the cold, especially during the night.[52] The plea for Timothy to arrive before winter, apart from being required by the limitations on sea travel in winter, further verifies that Paul anticipated a cold prison environment in the near future.[53]

Many scholars detect hints of emotional distress stemming from prison hardships in Paul’s communication to Timothy. His sense of abandonment and isolation surfaced at several points. Paul felt that “all . . . turned away” from him (1:15), that “all deserted” him (4:16), and that “Luke alone” stood with him (v. 11). At first glance these discouraging reports may seem inconsistent with Onesiphorus’s assistance and the presence of other believers in contact with Paul (Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and “all the brethren,” v. 21). But Paul’s gloomy assessments instead reflect the perceptions of a prisoner wearied by the stresses of imprisonment.[54]

Paul’s emotional state and physical hardships resemble the bitter experiences of other prisoners in ancient times. All the more powerful to Paul, then, was the hope of sharing in the future glories of heaven (expressed in different ways in 1:10, 12; 2:10–12; 4:1, 8, 18). Paul’s eschatological perspective in the letter, besides refuting false teaching in the community (2:17–18), must have answered his deep longings as a prisoner who found little tangible comfort in his immediate bleak circumstances.

Companions Supporting Paul

In contrast to the testimony of other letters, where Paul’s associates fulfilled ministry aims on his behalf, in 2 Timothy the help provided was largely on a personal level. The physical and emotional demands of the prison environment called for consistent aid from Paul’s acquaintances. Onesiphorus had set the precedent for “refreshing” Paul (1:16). This verb ἀναψύχω means “to provide relief from obligation or trouble.”[55] Onesiphorus’s service can be fully appreciated only in light of the examples from nonbiblical sources. Far from mere moral support, Onesiphorus most likely engaged in the unglamorous daily service a typical prisoner needed in order to remain healthy.[56] With Onesiphorus out of the picture, Luke was the sole coworker sharing Paul’s burden (4:11), though apparently some local Christians played a role in Paul’s life as well (v. 21). Evidently more help was still needed, since Paul wanted Timothy to join them and to bring Mark with him (vv. 9, 11). The need for the involvement of multiple assistants conforms well to other ancient accounts of incarceration and also suggests the serious nature of Paul’s captivity.

Conclusion

Paul’s final recorded imprisonment shared characteristics common to other portrayals of incarceration in the ancient Roman world. Paul experienced confinement while waiting for his ultimate verdict, in keeping with Roman regulations. Sources illustrate that imprisonment typically carried a stigma of shame. High-standing people thrust into the degradation of a prison suffered a loss of status in their own eyes and in the eyes of society. Paul was aware of this reproach, but he reinterpreted the shame as honor, because his confinement was for the sake of the gospel.

The gospel, however, did not diminish the pain and isolation suffered by Paul during his captivity. His experience this time differed significantly from his previous Roman imprisonment in that he no longer enjoyed freedom to minister but was chained in a remote location, alongside lowly criminals. He longed for Timothy to ignore the shame of imprisonment and come to Rome in order to render physical and emotional assistance that would help sustain Paul in his incarceration. In doing so Timothy would follow in the steps of Onesiphorus, Luke, and countless other historical figures who supported imprisoned friends. Strengthened by the aid of his friends, an unwavering commitment to the gospel, and the expectation of a future divine reward, Paul anticipated finishing the agonizing race that God had marked out for him (2 Tim. 4:7–8).

Notes

1. Brian Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1994); Craig S. Wansink, Chained in Christ: The Experiences and Rhetoric of Paul’s Imprisonments, Journal for the Study of the New Testament Supplement Series (Sheffield: Sheffield Academic, 1996); and Richard J. Cassidy, Paul in Chains: Roman Imprisonment and the Letters of Saint Paul (New York: Herder and Herder, 2001).
2. For example I. Howard Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, International Critical Commentary (Edinburgh: Clark, 1999); William D. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, Word Biblical Commentary (Nashville: Thomas Nelson, 2000); Jerome D. Quinn and William C. Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Notes and Commentary, Eerdmans Critical Commentary (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000); Luke Timothy Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy: A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary, Anchor Bible (New York: Doubleday, 2001); Raymond F. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus: A Commentary, New Testament Library (Louisville: Westminster John Knox, 2002); Philip H. Towner, The Letters to Timothy and Titus, New International Commentary on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2006).
3. See for example C. K. Barrett, “Pauline Controversies in the Post-Pauline Period,” New Testament Studies 20 (1973–1974): 239-43; Hans Conzelmann, “Die Schule des Paulus,” in Theologia Crucis—Signum Crucis: Festschrift für Erich Dinkler, ed. Carl Andersen and Günter Klein (Tübingen: J. C. B. Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1979), 85–96; and Martinus C. de Boer, “Images of Paul in the Post-Apostolic Period,” Catholic Biblical Quarterly 42 (1980): 360-62, 366–69.
4. More extensive support for the Pauline authorship of 2 Timothy may be found in Donald Guthrie, The Pastoral Epistles: An Introduction and Commentary, Tyndale New Testament Commentaries (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity, 1992), 17–62; and in Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, lxxxiii–cxxix.
5. See Terrence Y. Mullins, “2 Timothy and the Book of Acts,” Andrews University Seminary Studies 31 (1993): 199-203.
6. Ibid., 202.
7. Rapske, The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, 177.
8. Peter Lampe, “The Roman Christians of Romans 16, ” in The Romans Debate, ed. Karl P. Donfried, rev. ed. (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1991), 221. Lampe does not believe in the historical veracity of 2 Timothy. He points out the different locations of Paul’s companions in an attempt to disprove the hypothesis that Romans 16 is addressed to Christians in Ephesus. He does not consider the possibility that 2 Timothy may have been written after the events recorded in Acts.
9. David Trobisch thinks that the author of 2 Timothy tried to imitate the imprisonment described at the end of Acts (The First Edition of the New Testament [New York: Oxford, 2000], 85). But if this is the case, the pseudonymous author was not very successful in constructing a setting and tone that conform to what is found in Acts 28.
10. See Mounce for a detailed discussion of how the events presented in 1 and 2 Timothy and Titus can be arranged in the chronology of Paul’s life (Pastoral Epistles, liv–lxiv).
11. Cassidy, Paul in Chains, 36–37.
12. See Tony Honoré, “Justinian’s Codification,” in The Oxford Classical Dictionary, ed. Simon Hornblower and Antony Spawforth, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1996), 803.
13. The Digest of Justinian, ed. Theodor Mommsen and Paul Krueger, trans. Alan Watson, vol. 4 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1985), 48.19.6–8.
14. Ibid., 48.19.28.
15. Eusebius recounted, “It is related that in his time Paul was beheaded in Rome itself” (The Ecclesiastical HistoryI, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Kirsopp Lake [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959], 2.25.7).
16. The Digest of Justinian 48.19.8; cf. 48.19.29.
17. Ibid., 48.3.1.
18. Rapske discusses the need for caution in assuming literal chains every time chains are mentioned, since chains may at times stand as a metonymy for imprisonment (The Book of Acts and Paul in Roman Custody, 25–28).
19. The Digest of Justinian, 49.7.1.
20. Josephus, The Jewish Wars, Loeb Classical Library, trans. H. St. J. Thackeray (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), 4:628.
21. Livy, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Evan T. Sage (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 38.59.10.
22. Cicero, The Verrine Orations, Loeb Classical Library, trans. L. H. G. Greenwood (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 2.5.16, 21.
23. Dio’s Roman History, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Earnest Cary (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961), 58.11.1.
24. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Louis H. Feldman (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1965), 18.192, 195.
25. Lucian, Toxaris, Loeb Classical Library, trans. A. M. Harmon (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 28.
26. Livy 38.57.3.
27. Seneca, Epistulae Morales, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Richard M. Gummere (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1967), 9.8-9.
28. Ignatius, To Polycarp, in The Apostolic Fathers: Greek Texts and English Translations, ed. and rev. Michael W. Holmes (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1999), 2.3.
29. Walter Bauer, William F. Arndt, and F. Wilbur Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd ed., rev. and ed. Frederick W. Danker (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 357.
30. Cassidy even sees this reappraisal of the shame of imprisonment as a main theme in the letter. “Paul’s second purpose is to emphasize that his own chains are not a cause for shame before God. Accordingly, Timothy should not be influenced to turn away from the imprisoned Paul; rather, he should strive to be associated with Paul in his suffering” (Paul in Chains, 107–8).
31. Gregory M. Corrigan, “Paul’s Shame for the Gospel,” Biblical Theology Bulletin 16 (1986): 23-27.
32. Cassidy considers that in 2 Timothy 2:9 Paul expressed resentment about his imprisonment (Paul in Chains, 111). Instead of reflecting resentment, though, Paul was more likely demonstrating the extent of his willingness to suffer for the gospel (the use of μέχρι stands as a marker of degree).
33. Collins, 1 & 2 Timothy and Titus, 217.
34. Philostratus, The Life of Apollonius of Tyana, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Christopher P. Jones (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2005), 7.26.1.
35. Ibid., 7.34.
36. Ibid., 7.34-7.40. See 7.40 for the reversal of this process: “The king releases you from these chains immediately . . . and permits you to stay in the free prison until your defense takes place.”
37. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.232-33. See also The Digest of Justinian 48.3.3: “The deified Pius sent a rescript in Greek in reply to a letter from the inhabitants of Antioch to the effect that a person prepared to give sureties should not be put in chains, unless it was agreed that he had committed so serious a crime that he ought not to be entrusted to sureties nor to soldiers.”
38. The Digest of Justinian 48.19.8.
39. Cicero, The Verrine Orations 2.5.23–24.
40. Tertullian, Ad Martyras, in The Ante-Nicene Fathers, trans. S. Thelwall (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 1995), 2.
41. Plutarch, Philopoemen, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Bernadotte Perrin (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1959), 20.2.
42. Lucian, Toxaris 29.
43. Diodorus of Sicily, Loeb Classical Library, trans. Francis R. Walton (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 31.9.1–5.
44. Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 18.202-4.
45. Lucian, The Passing ofPeregrinus, Loeb Classical Library, trans. A. M. Harmon (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1962), 12.
46. Ibid., 31.
47. Ibid., 32.
48. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 361.
49. In TheDigest of Justinian 49.7.1 Ulpian associates chains with criminals.
50. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 492.
51. Plutarch, Philopoemen 20.2.
52. For further discussion about the potential characteristics and benefits of such a cloak see Quinn and Wacker, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 809.
53. Mounce, Pastoral Epistles, 600; and Marshall, A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the Pastoral Epistles, 820, 829–830.
54. Johnson, The First and Second Letters to Timothy, 444.
55. Bauer, Arndt, and Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 75.
56. The background information on imprisonment sheds important light on understanding Onesiphorus’s service. For instance W. D. Thomas overlooks the possibility that Onesiphorus was meeting Paul’s basic survival needs as a prisoner and focuses instead solely on the moral support given (“New Testament Characters: XII. Onesiphorus,” Expository Times 96 [1984-1985]: 116-17).