DEMAS THE DESERTER

There are a number of Paul's co-workers listed in Acts and the epistles, but one of the most intriguing is Demas, who is only mentioned three times in the New Testament (Colossians 4:14; Philemon 24; and II Timothy 4:10).

What do we know about Demas' Background?

From his inclusion in the list of Paul's companions in Colossians 4:10-14, we can learn first off (along with Dunn, Lea, Goodwin, Barth and Blanke, etc.) that he was a Gentile Christian since those in verses 10-11 are said to be “of the circumcision” with Demas and Luke listed afterward.

Next to be mentioned is the actual name “Demas.” There is even some controversy here among scholars. Walls makes the statement that “the name is relatively rare” while Dunn says it was a common name. Bruce states that “Demas is an abridged form of some such name as Demetrius, Democritus, Demosthenes, etc.” There is person named Demetrius mentioned in III John 12, and Chapman identifies him with Demas. Of this proposal, Knight says “this proposal is not conclusive.” Similarly Lea says it is impossible to know if Demetrius the silversmith of Acts 19:24 is the same as Demas.

The only other clue to Demas' identity is the presumed fact that he was originally from Thessalonica, based on three pieces of evidence: (1) in II Timothy 4:9 that is the city to which Demas went when he “deserted” Paul, (2) he is mentioned in Philemon 24 beside Aristarchus the Thessalonian (see Acts 20:4; 27:2), and (3) two of the politarchs of Thessalonica were named Demetrius. By contrast, Towner says, “This is the assumption of later Christian tradition, but it is not known whether the basis for this assumption goes beyond these few connections.”

What can we infer from Colossians 4:14?

Walls notes that in Colossians, Demas is the only person “mentioned without commendation.” Similarly, Goodwin says, “The absence of any honorable or endearing mention here may be owing to the commencement of this apostasy, or some other unfavorable indication in his character.” Personally, I think that arguing from absence is always a weak argument since there may have been other reasons for Paul not adding any descriptive to Demas' name.

For example, Dunn explains: “It is notable that while earlier names in the closest parallel list of greetings have some descriptive phrase or comment appended, to personalize what might otherwise be a mere catalogue, the later names lack such elaborations (Rom. 16:14-16). The appropriate inference is that Paul did not know the individuals so well or feel so close to them.” And that could be the case with Demas, who was last on the list in Colossians 4:10-14.

Why did Demas defect?

This, of course, is the key question we would like answered. We are only told in II Timothy 4:9 that he left Paul because he was “in love with this present world/age.” F.F. Bruce says, “What exactly is implied in this expression is uncertain.” And N.T. Wright calls it “a sad but cryptic allusion to a desertion about which we have no other information.” Similarly, Towner says that this explanatory phrase is “ambiguous” although is does resemble the admonition in I John 2:10 – “Do not love the world or anything in the world.”

Another possible clue as to its meaning is found in the previous verse II Timothy 4:8 which talks of those who love to look forward to the Lord's coming. Since these are the only two places in the Pastoral Epistles where the word agapao appears, there may be a purposeful contrast between the two attitudes intended. This is the opinion of both Knight and Guthrie.

So the bottom line is that the correct answer to the question above is largely a matter of guesswork. Just look at the following scholarly comments ranging from those highly critical of Demas to those who feel his action was justified or at least understandable:

    Melick: “Paul's statement that Demas 'loved this world' apparently means the pressures of Paul's situation and the lure of an easier life caused him to forsake the Lord...Paul did not say that Demas departed from the Lord. Paul's sharp criticism, however, could certainly be understood that way, and that is what most scholars have assumed about him.” But despite Melick's comments, I could really find no modern scholar who agreed that Demas' action amounted to apostasy from the faith. And some appeared to actually be sympathetic to him.

    Ward: “It is possible to wonder if jealousy moved him by the presence of 'Luke the beloved physician...It may have corresponded to the modern 'call to a better church' and to a more congenial setting for ministry. Or it may have been sheer worldliness, the desire for more amenities and more money in a secular trade.”

    Guthrie thinks that “by this time he had perhaps found the apostle's demands too rigorous. There is, however, nothing to suggest that Demas became an apostate.”

    Hanson agrees with Spicq that the desertion of Demas “only meant that Demas grew discouraged and returned home, not that he turned apostate.”

    Bruce feels that “the natural inference is that some temporal interest took him off to Thessalonica at a time when the imprisoned apostle would have valued his continued presence.”

    Litfin: “Demas deserted the apostle to embrace the safety, freedom, or comfort of Thessalonica.”

    Lea: “His love for this world probably involved a preference for ease and comfort along with a reluctance to share Paul's sufferings. Paul's words did not picture him as an utter apostate but reflected disappointment at his self-interest.”

    Walls: Paul's words “suggest that personal interests, not cowardice, took him to Thessalonica.”

    Towner quotes Quinn-Wacker as suggesting that “it was the precarious poverty of the apostolate that eroded Demas' s zeal,” or even that he had “somehow provided for the imprisoned apostle and left with the purse.” Towner prefers the first of these explanations.

I would have to agree with Towner's observation that the tone of Paul's comment “seems closer in tone to that used of Luke to describe John Mark's lapse (Acts 15:38). There is thus no reason to think that his desertion from the Pauline team...indicates his rejection of the faith or even necessarily his retirement from Christian service.” After all, just look at Mark's journey of faith in which Paul first condemned him for his desertion, but by II Timothy 4:9 is commending him to the Colossians as someone who “is profitable to me for the ministry.”

What happened to Demas?

We are naturally curious as to Demas' subsequent life after the NT references end. However, Dunn states, “Of Demas we hear nothing more in Christian tradition.” But that statement is only true if one is speaking about reliable Church tradition.

Fitzmyer says that Epiphanius (end of 4^th cent. AD) reported that Demas became a pagan priest, a story repeated by Photius of Constantinople (9^th cent. AD). Also, there is a bishop of Magnesia named Damas mentioned in Ignatius' letter to that church (ca. AD 110), but Fitzmyer expresses his doubts that it is the same person being talked about.

Then we come to the apocryphal book Acts of Paul and Thecla, written about AD 160. The references to Demas begin in the first verse of this work: “When Paul went up to Iconium, after his flight from Antioch, Demas and Hermogenes became his companions, who were then full of hypocrisy.” These two villainous characters go from bad to worse after Onesiphorus refuses to give them the same honor with which he greeted Paul. Onesiphorus explains his actions to them by saying that he did not perceive in them “the fruits of righteousness.” They proceed to vilify Paul to Thamyris, the chief man of the city, and then betray Paul to the Roman authorities, causing Paul to be whipped. Of course, there is no serious scholar who would taken any of this as historical fact, but it does serve to illustrate the negative image Demas had in the later church.