THE APOSTLE FORSAKEN BY MEN BUT STRENGTHENED BY THE LORD.—THE MISSION TO THE GENTILES COMPLETED.—THE SURE HOPE, AND THE FINAL HYMN OF PRAISE.
“At my first defence no man took my part, but all forsook me: may it not be laid to their account. But the Lord stood by me and strengthened me; that through me the message might be fully proclaimed, and that all the Gentiles might hear: and I was delivered out of the mouth of the lion. The Lord will deliver me from evil work, and will save me unto His heavenly kingdom: to whom be the glory for ever and ever. Amen.”—2 Tim. iv. 16–18.
There is a general agreement at the present time that Eusebius is in error, when, in a well-known passage in his Ecclesiastical History (II. xxii. 2–7), he refers this “first defence” and the “deliverance out of the lion’s mouth” to the first Roman imprisonment and the release which put an end to it, probably A.D. 63. The deliverance does not mean release from prison following upon acquittal, but temporary rescue from imminent danger. Eusebius makes a second mistake in this chapter which is the result of the first error; but an avoidance of the second would have preserved him from the first. He says that the Apostle shows in the Second Epistle to Timothy that only Luke was with him when he wrote, but at his former defence not even he. Now during the first Roman imprisonment St. Paul was not alone, and one of the persons who was with him was Timothy himself, as we see from the opening of the letter to the Philippians. It is, therefore, highly improbable that the Apostle would think it worth while to tell Timothy what took place at the trial which ended the first imprisonment, seeing that Timothy was then in Rome. And even if Timothy had left Rome before the trial came on, which is not very likely, he would long since have heard what took place, both from others and from the Apostle himself. It is obvious that in the present passage St. Paul is giving his disciple information respecting something which has recently taken place, of which Timothy is not likely to have heard.
The value of the witness of Eusebius is not, however, seriously diminished by this twofold mistake. It is clear that he was fully convinced that there were two Roman imprisonments; one early in Nero’s reign, when the Emperor was more disposed to be merciful, and one later; and that he was convinced of this on independent grounds, and not because he considered that the genuineness of the Pastoral Epistles would be untenable without the hypothesis of a second imprisonment.
Another confirmation of the view of Eusebius is found in the statement respecting Trophimus, that Paul had left him sick at Miletus. It is impossible to place the Apostle at Miletus with Trophimus prior to the first imprisonment. Consequently some who deny the second imprisonment, and yet maintain the genuineness of this letter, resort to the desperate method of making the verb to be third person plural instead of first person singular (απέλειπον or απέλιπον), and translating “Trophimus they left at Miletus sick.”
“At my first defence no man took my part, but all forsook me.” He had no patronus, no advocatus, no clientela. Among all the Christians in Rome there was not one who would stand at his side in court either to speak on his behalf, or to advise him in the conduct of his case, or to support him by a demonstration of sympathy. The expression for “no one took my part” (οὐδείς μοι παρεγένετο) literally means “no one came to my side,” or “became present on my behalf.” The verb is specially frequent in the writings of St. Luke. And the word which is rendered “forsook” (εγκατέλιπον) is still more graphic. It signifies “leaving a person in a position,” and especially in a bad position; leaving him in straits. It is almost the exact counterpart of our colloquial phrase “to leave in the lurch.” St. Paul uses it elsewhere of those who with him are “pursued, but not forsaken” (2 Cor. iv. 9). And both St. Mark and St. Luke, following the LXX., use it in translating Christ’s cry upon the cross: “Why hast thou forsaken Me?” Hence it signifies not merely desertion (καταλείπειν), but desertion at a time when help and support are needed.
What is the meaning of the “all”? “All forsook me.” Does it include Luke, whom he has just mentioned as being the only person with him? And, if so, is it meant as an indirect reproach? Some would have it that we have here an indication of the spurious character of the letter. The forger is unable consistently to maintain the part which he has assumed. In writing “all forsook me” he has already forgotten what he has just written about Luke: and he forgets both statements when a few lines further on he represents Eubulus, Pudens, Linus, Claudia, and others as sending greetings.
But, like so many of these objections, this criticism turns out, when reasonably examined, to be an argument for the genuineness of the letter. These apparent inconsistencies are just the things which a forger could and would have avoided. Even a very blundering forger would have avoided three glaring contradictions in about thirty lines: and they are glaring contradictions, if they are interpreted as they must be interpreted for the purposes of this criticism. “Only Luke is with me.” “Every one has forsaken me.” “All the brethren salute thee.” Any one of these statements, if forced to apply to the same set of circumstances, contradicts the other two. But then this meaning is forced upon them, and is not their natural meaning: and these are just the apparent inconsistencies which the writer of a real letter takes no pains to avoid, because there is not the smallest danger of his being misunderstood.
“All forsook me” is exactly a parallel to “all that are in Asia turned away from me” (see pp. 321, 322.) The “all” in both cases means “all who might have been expected to help.” It refers to those who could have been of service, who in many cases had been asked to render service, by being witnesses in Paul’s favour and the like, and who abstained from doing anything for him. The Apostle’s “first defence” probably took place some weeks, or even months, before the writing of this letter. From our knowledge of the delays which often took place in Roman legal proceedings, there would be nothing surprising if a whole year had elapsed since the first opening of the case. It is quite possible, therefore, that at the time when it began St. Luke was not yet in Rome, and consequently had no opportunity of aiding his friend. And it is also possible that he was not in a position to render any assistance, however anxious he may have been to do so. There is no reason whatever for supposing that the Apostle includes him among those for whom he prays that God will forgive them their desertion of him, even as he himself forgives it.
Nor is there any contradiction between “Only Luke is with me,” and the salutations sent by Eubulus and others. There were various members of the Church in Rome who occasionally visited St. Paul in his imprisonment, or at least kept up a certain amount of communication with him. But Luke was the only outsider who was with him, the only one who had come to him from a distance and been both able and willing to remain with him. Others both in Rome and from other Churches had paid visits to the prisoner; but they had been unable or unwilling to stay with him. Luke was the only person who had done that. Therefore the fact that various Roman Christians were ready to send greetings to Timothy is in no way inconsistent with the special commendation bestowed upon St. Luke for being his friend’s sole companion in prison.