Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander, whom I have delivered up to Satan, that they may learn not to blaspheme.

“Plainly Paul states that he delivered to Satan Hymenaeus and Alexander, "that they learn not to blaspheme," as he writes to Timothy. Nevertheless Paul himself says that a "thorn was given him, an angel of Satan," by which he was to be buffeted, lest he should exalt himself. Weren't these brothers delivered to Satan not for perdition but for giving them an opportunity to change? If so, what is the difference between blasphemy and incest and a soul entirely free from these? The free soul would be elated from no other source than the highest sanctity and all innocence. The elation of such a soul would be in the apostle's case restrained by this buffeting, by means, some say, of pain in the ear or head. Incest, however, and blasphemy would have deserved a different punishment. The person would have been delivered over to Satan himself for a possession, not to an "angel" of his.… If you take the assumption that the crime of Hymenaeus and Alexander—blasphemy—is irremissible in this and in the future age, the apostle would not, in opposition to the clear directive of the Lord, have given to Satan, under a hope of pardon, men already irremediably sunken from the faith into blasphemy. Thus, he pronounced them "shipwrecked with regard to faith," having no longer the solace of the ship, the church.”

“When one knows properly these timely points, his understanding of the faith is right and healthy. But if he mistakes any such points, he quickly falls into heresy. Thus Hymenaeus and Alexander and their fellows were untimely when they said that the resurrection had already been. The Galatians were untimely in the other direction in making much of circumcision now.”

“Those whom the usual penalties do not recall to their senses, and even exclusion from prayers does not lead to repentance, must be subjected to the canons given by the Lord. For it has been written, "If your brother sins, go and show him his fault, between you and him. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two others along with you. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church. And if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Now, this truly has been done in the case of this man. Once he was accused; in the presence of one or two he was convicted; a third time, in the presence of the church. Since, therefore, we have solemnly protested to him and he has not acquiesced, let him for the future be excommunicated. And let it be announced to all the village that he is not to be admitted to any participation in the ordinary relations of life, so that, by our refusal to associate with him, he may become wholly the food for the devil.”

“They then who turn aside from the faith must suffer shipwreck; and this he shows by an example. "Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander." And from them he would instruct us. You see how even from those times there have been seducing Teachers, curious enquirers, and men holding off from the faith, and searching out by their own reasonings. As the shipwrecked man is naked and destitute of all things, so is he that fails away from the faith without resource, he knows not where to stand or where to stay himself, nor has he the advantage of a good life so as to gain anything from that quarter. For when the head is disordered, what avails the rest of the body? and if faith without a good life is unavailing, much more is the converse true. If God despises His own for our sakes, much more ought we to despise our own for His sake. For so it is, where any one fails away from the faith, he has no steadiness, he swims this way and that, till at last he is lost in the deep. "Whom I delivered to Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme!" Thus it is blasphemy to search into divine things by our own reasonings. For what have human reasonings in common with them? But how does Satan instruct them not to blaspheme? can he instruct others, who has not yet taught himself, but is a blasphemer still? It is not that "he should instruct," but that they should be instructed. It is not he that does it, though such is the result. As elsewhere he says in the case of the fornicator: "To deliver such an one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh." Not that he may save the body, but "that the spirit may be saved." Therefore it is spoken impersonally. How then is this effected? As executioners, though themselves laden with numberless crimes, are made the correctors of others; so it is here with the evil spirit. But why didst thou not punish them thyself, as thou didst that Bar-Jesus, and as Peter did Ananias, instead of delivering them to Satan? It was not that they might be punished, but that they might be instructed. For that he had the power appears from other passages, "What will ye? Shall I come unto you with a rod?" And again, "Lest I should use sharpness, according to the power which the Lord hath given me to edification, and not to destruction." Why did he then call upon Satan to punish them? That the disgrace might be greater, as the severity and the punishment was more striking. Or rather, they themselves chastised those who did not yet believe, but those who turned aside, they delivered to Satan. Why then did Peter punish Ananias? Because whilst he was tempting the Holy Ghost, he was still an unbeliever. That the unbelieving therefore might learn that they could not escape, they themselves inflicted punishment upon them; but those who had learnt this, yet afterwards turned aside, they delivered to Satan; showing that they were sustained not by their own power, but by their care for them; and as many as were lifted up into arrogance were delivered to him. For as kings with their own hands slay their enemies, but deliver their subjects to executioners for punishment, so it is in this case. And these acts were done to show the authority committed to the Apostles. Nor was it a slight power, to be able thus to subject the devil to their commands. For this shows that he served and obeyed them even against his will, and this was no little proof of the power of grace. And listen how he delivered them: "When ye are gathered together, and my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, to deliver such an one unto Satan." He was then immediately expelled from the common assembly, he was separated from the fold, he became deserted and destitute; he was delivered to the wolf. For as the cloud designated the camp of the Hebrews, so the Spirit distinguished the Church. If any one therefore was without, he was consumed, and it was by the judgment of the Apostles that he was cast out of the pale. So also the Lord delivered Judas to Satan. For immediately "after the sop Satan entered into him." Or this may be said; that those whom they wished to amend, they did not themselves punish, but reserved their punishments for those who were incorrigible. Or otherwise, that they were the more dreaded for delivering them up to others. Job also was delivered to Satan, but not for his sins, but for fuller proof of his worth.”

“Let us learn, brethren, when actions are alike, to distinguish the intentions of the actors; otherwise, if we shut our eyes to this, we might judge falsely, and we might accuse well-wishers of doing us harm. Likewise, when the same apostle says that he delivered up certain men to Satan, "that they may learn not to blaspheme," did he render evil for evil, or did he, rather, judge that it was a good work to correct evil men even by evil?”

“Above he showed his own condition, both as to sins under the law and as to the goods in the time of grace; here he shows the reason for these benefits, which is taken from divine mercy. And first he sets forth divine mercy in general; second he applies it to himself, at the words "of whom I am the first"; third he sets forth the giving of thanks, at the words "but to the king of ages." Concerning the first he does two things: first he commends the truth about to be proposed; second he sets forth the divine mercy, at the words "because Christ Jesus." As to the first he says, "a faithful saying," etc. Now there are two things to be commended in a saying, namely that it be true and that it be acceptable. For sometimes a true saying is harsh, and stirs up hatred. Gal. 4:16: "I have become your enemy, telling you the truth." But this saying, first indeed, has truth; hence he says, "a faithful saying." Apoc., last chapter: "these words are most faithful and true." Likewise it is acceptable, because it concerns our salvation; therefore he says, "and worthy of all acceptance." Zach. 1:13: "and the Lord answered the angel who was speaking," etc. Another text has: "a human saying," because it concerns the taking up of men. Titus 3:4: "the kindness and love for mankind of our Savior appeared," etc. And this saying is such: "that Christ came," etc. That he came into the world expresses a twofold nature, namely that of divinity, in which he existed before he appeared in the world. John 16:28: "I came forth from the Father, and came into the world," etc. And that of humanity, in which he appeared. And because he is God, he fills heaven and earth, Jer. 23:24; therefore it does not belong to him according to the divine nature to be in any place, but it belongs to him according to the human nature. John 1:10: "he was in the world, and the world," et cetera. "He came unto his own," et cetera. But for what did he come? "To save sinners," that is, for the salvation of the peoples. John 3:17: "For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him." John 12:47: "For I did not come to judge the world." But if no one had been a sinner, would he not have been incarnate? It seems not, because he came to save sinners. Therefore the incarnation would not have been necessary. Likewise the Gloss: "take away the disease, and there will be no need of medicine." I answer. It must be said that this is sufficiently clear from the words of the saints. But this question is not of great authority, because God ordained the things to be done according as the things to be done actually were. And we do not know what he would have ordained, if he had not foreseen sin; nevertheless the authorities seem expressly to declare that he would not have been incarnate, if man had not sinned — toward which side I myself incline more. Then when he says "of whom I am the first," he applies this to himself. First confessing himself a sinner; second he says that he was saved, at the words "but I obtained mercy." He says therefore, "of whom I am the first." Here a certain heretic says that the soul of Adam was in Paul, and passed from body to body — as if to say: I am the first sinner, because the soul of Adam is my soul. But this is against the Apostle, Rom. 9:11: "when they were not yet born," etc. Therefore the soul does not exist before the body. He is first, therefore, not in time but in the greatness of his sins. And he says this out of humility. Prov. 18:17: "the just man is first the accuser of himself." Prov. 30:2: "I am the most foolish of men," etc. But was the Apostle really the greatest sinner? And it seems that Judas was greater. But some say that Paul's sin was more general, because it was against the whole Church. But this is nothing, since Paul acted in unbelief, whereas many Jews persecuted out of malice. It must be said, therefore, that he is first, not because he was the greatest among the sinners who then existed, but the greatest among sinners who were saved; as if to say: he came to save sinners, of whom — namely, of the sinners saved — I am the first; which is to be understood of those who preceded the Apostle, since even before him many others had persecuted the Church. And he says this in order to show that everything God does, he does for the showing forth of his own goodness. Prov. 16:4: "the Lord has worked all things for himself." Ecclesiasticus: "his work is full of the glory of the Lord." Likewise for our benefit; and therefore he says, "therefore he saved me." First for his own glory. Hence "first" is expounded as first in time, or as first, that is, most especially. "All patience," that is, perfect patience, because though provoked he did not punish, but rather exalted his adversary, and this for our benefit; hence he says "for an example," that is, for instruction and edification — as if to say: so that sinners might not despair of approaching him. 1 Peter, last chapter: "made a pattern of the flock." Then when he says "to the king," etc., he sets forth the giving of thanks, and concerning this he does two things: first he commends him to whom thanks are given; second he renders thanks, at the word "honor." Now he commends him, first, from his power; second, from the property of his nature. As to the first he says, "to the king." His dominion is the greatest, because he alone rules, and has free power, not according to statutes, as a political ruler does. But God alone is the lord of all. And therefore he says, "to God." Apoc. 19:16: "king of kings and lord of lords." Ps. 46:7: "for God is king of all the earth." Likewise the power of any king, for the most part, lasts no more than fifty years, but this one is of all ages. Ps. 144:13: "your kingdom is of all ages," etc. Ecclesiasticus 10:4: "the power of the earth is in the hand of God." To whom also belongs the property of the nature of God. Concerning this it must be known that among things, the first difference of natural things is the corruptible and the incorruptible. And of incorruptible things, some are visible and corporeal, such as the terrestrial bodies; but some are invisible and spiritual, such as the angels. And these, according to the Platonists, are divided into gods, who are supreme by nature, and into intellects, which are not gods but are divine, and into souls; but among us there is one God alone. Deut. 6:4: "hear, O Israel, the Lord your God." He says therefore, first, "immortal," to distinguish him from corruptible things; "invisible," to show that he belongs to the invisible, and to distinguish him from other visible things. He says "to God alone," and not "alone immortal," or "alone invisible," because he alone is God by nature, although he could be called "alone immortal," and "alone invisible," that is, special above the others. Below, last chapter: "who alone has immortality." Then when he says "honor and glory," he gives thanks; as if to say: honor is to be shown to him from the subjection of the whole creature, and in manifestation of his own most excellent goodness, brightness, and glory. Apoc. 7:12: "blessing, and brightness, and wisdom, and thanksgiving, honor, power and strength to our God." "Forever and ever," because the age of others lasts but a little time. Is. 40:6: "all flesh is grass, and all its glory as the flower of the grass." Then when he says "this commandment," etc., he instructs Timothy to remain in the things that are said. First he recalls what has been entrusted to him; second he admonishes him to the due use of it; and third he teaches the manner of using it. He says therefore, "this commandment" — namely, that you keep the end of the law, that is, that you preserve charity always, and not the fables of the Jews — "I commend to you," as a faithful deposit, because it has been entrusted to you for this reason. And how? "According to the preceding," etc., that is, because this Gospel does not disagree with the prophecies which he had learned before, since he was the son of a Jewish woman. 2 Peter 1:19: "we have a more sure prophetic word, to which you do well to attend, as to a lamp shining in a dark place," etc. 1 Thess., last chapter: "do not despise prophecies," etc. Or "according to the preceding," that is, according to what I and other holy men knew through the spirit of prophecy was to be handed on to you concerning you. "That in them you may war," namely in those prophecies, "the good warfare." Warfare is twofold: one spiritual, one carnal. 2 Cor. 10:4: "the weapons of our warfare are not carnal, but mighty to God," etc. In a good warfare two things are required on the part of the soldier: namely, that he do nothing contrary to military discipline, and that he not grow slack through idleness. 1 Cor. 9:25: "everyone who competes in the contest abstains from all things," etc. Likewise on the part of the warfare two things are required: namely, that it fight down those opposed to the commonwealth, and that it subject those who ought to be subject. So too it is in the spiritual warfare, because it is ordered to destroying all who exalt themselves, and to subjecting every understanding to the obedience of Christ, as is said in 2 Cor. 10. And this is the true warfare, of which he says "that you war," etc. Where also, first, the manner of using it is set forth, and second its necessity, at the words "which some." He says therefore, "that you war," etc., as if to say: you can indeed wage the good warfare, first through the good faith which you have. 1 John, last chapter: "this is the victory that overcomes the world, faith," etc. Likewise through a good conscience, because a man easily withdraws from that which bites him; hence the remorse of conscience is like a certain goad, which pricks the one who has a bad conscience, and therefore he quickly withdraws from sins through a good conscience and right faith. Acts 23:1: "I have lived before God in all good conscience until this day." 2 Cor. 1:12: "this is our glory, the testimony of our conscience." The necessity of a good conscience is consequently shown, when he says "which some," etc.; where first he sets forth the fault; second the punishment; third the fruit of the punishment. The fault, at the word "which" — namely, a good conscience — "certain men, thrusting away, have made shipwreck concerning the faith." For he who errs against the faith loses everything that he has. Heb. 11:6: "without faith it is impossible to please God." Likewise he dies, because "my just man lives by faith," Habakkuk 2:4, and Rom. 11:17 — "of whom are Alexander and Hymenaeus." 2 Tim. 4:14: "Alexander the coppersmith did me much harm," etc. Then their punishment is set forth, when he says "whom I have delivered," etc., because he excommunicated them, so that the faithful might avoid them, lest they defile them. Now the excommunication of the Apostle was of such power that those excommunicated were soon seized upon by the Devil, and vexed bodily. 1 Cor. 5:4f.: "you being gathered together, and my spirit, in the power of the Lord Jesus, to deliver such a man to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit may be saved." Yet even now men are delivered up to be vexed spiritually, because they lose the suffrages of the Church, which help much against the Devil. And "I have delivered" just as God "delivered up to a reprobate sense," Rom. 1:28, as it were withdrawing his help, and the communion of the Church, and its suffrages. And this not out of hatred, but out of charity for their profit. 1 Cor. 5:5: "that the spirit may be saved." Hence he says, "that they may learn," at least through punishment, "not to blaspheme." Now one learns to withdraw from sin in three ways: sometimes, namely, through punishment, when he is vexed bodily; likewise through the confusion of excommunication; likewise from this, that when the Church delivers someone to Satan, he falls into manifest sins, whence, confounded, he is humbled, and abstains even from the hidden sins, which before he did not know himself to have.”

“Of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander,.... The former of these is mentioned in Ti2 2:17 and that part of faith he made shipwreck of, or erred in, was the doctrine of the resurrection of the dead, whereby the faith of some nominal believers was overthrown; and this was attended with the putting away of a good conscience, he seemingly before had; for his profane and vain babblings increased to more ungodliness: the latter seems to be the same with Alexander the coppersmith, who did the apostle much evil, Ti2 4:14 and it may be is the same with him who was at Ephesus when the apostle was, there, Act 19:33 and where he might be now with Hymenaeus, with whom he might agree in his erroneous opinions, and therefore are particularly mentioned, Ephesus being the place where Timothy now was. It seems by their names that they were both Greeks; Alexander is a known name among the Greeks, since the times of Alexander the great, and even became common among the Jews; see Gill on Act 4:6, and Hymenaeus was a name among the Grecians, from Hymen, the Heathen god of marriage: one of this name is mentioned among those said to be raised from the dead by Aesculapius (q); there was also a bishop of Jerusalem of this name (r), Whom I have delivered to Satan; not by excommunication, which is the act of a church, and not of a single person; but by an apostolical power he had of delivering the bodies of men into the hands of Satan, by him to be tortured and afflicted, in order to bring them to a sense of their sins, and as a chastisement and correction for them, and a token of God's displeasure at them; See Gill on Co1 5:5. That they may learn not to blaspheme; or "that being chastised", corrected, or disciplined, "they might not blaspheme", as they had before done; either by words, contradicting, reviling, and scoffing at the doctrine of the resurrection; or by their unbecoming lives and conversations, giving themselves great liberty in sinning, supposing there was no truth in that doctrine; whereby they not only blasphemed the Christian religion themselves, but caused it to be evil spoken of by others, (q) Apollodorus de Orig. Deor. l. 3. p. 172. (r) Euseb. Eccl. Hist. l. 7. c. 14. 30. Next: 1 Timothy Chapter 2”

“Of whom is Hymeneus and Alexander - Who had the faith but thrust it away; who had a good conscience through believing, but made shipwreck of it. Hence we find that all this was not only possible, but did actually take place, though some have endeavored to maintain the contrary; who, confounding eternity with a state of probation, have supposed that if a man once enter into the grace of God in this life, he must necessarily continue in it to all eternity. Thousands of texts and thousands of facts refute this doctrine. Delivered unto Satan - For the destruction of the flesh, that the spirit might be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus. See what is noted on Co1 5:5; what this sort of punishment was no man now living knows. There is nothing of the kind referred to in the Jewish writings. It seems to have been something done by mere apostolical authority, under the direction of the Spirit of God. Hymeneus, it appears, denied the resurrection, see Ti2 2:17, Ti2 2:18; but whether this Alexander be the same with Alexander the coppersmith, Ti2 4:14, or the Alexander, Act 19:33, cannot be determined. Probably, he was the same with the coppersmith. Whether they were brought back to the acknowledgment of the truth does not appear. From what is said in the second epistle the case seems extremely doubtful. Let him who most assuredly standeth, take heed lest he fall. He that is self-confident is already half fallen. He who professes to believe that God will absolutely keep him from falling finally, and neglects watching unto prayer, is not in a safer state. He who lives by the moment, walks in the light, and maintains his communion with God, is in no danger of apostasy.”

“Hymenaeus--There is no difficulty in supposing him to be the HymenÃ&brvbrus of Ti2 2:17. Though "delivered over to Satan" (the lord of all outside the Church, Act 26:18, and the executor of wrath, when judicially allowed by God, on the disobedient, Co1 5:5; Co2 12:7), he probably was restored to the Church subsequently, and again troubled it. Paul, as an apostle, though distant at Rome pronounced the sentence to be executed at Ephesus, involving, probably, the excommunication of the offenders (Mat 18:17-18). The sentence operated not only spiritually, but also physically, sickness, or some such visitation of God, falling on the person excommunicated, in order to bring him to repentance and salvation. Alexander here is probably "the coppersmith" who did Paul "much evil" when the latter visited Ephesus. The "delivering him to Satan" was probably the consequence of his withstanding the apostle (Ti2 4:14-15); as the same sentence on HymenÃ&brvbrus was the consequence of "saying that the resurrection is past already" (Ti2 2:18; his putting away good conscience, naturally producing shipwreck concerning FAITH, Ti1 1:19. If one's religion better not his morals, his moral deficiencies will corrupt his religion. The rain which falls pure from heaven will not continue pure if it be received in an unclean vessel [ARCHBISHOP WHATELY]). It is possible that he is the Alexander, then a Jew, put forward by the Jews, doubtless against Paul, at the riot in Ephesus (Act 19:33). that they may--not "might"; implying that the effect still continues--the sentence is as yet unremoved. learn--Greek, "be disciplined," namely, by chastisement and suffering. blaspheme--the name of God and Christ, by doings and teachings unworthy of their Christian profession (Rom 2:23-24; Jam 2:7). Though the apostles had the power of excommunication, accompanied with bodily inflictions, miraculously sent (Co2 10:8), it does not follow that fallible ministers now have any power, save that of excluding from church fellowship notorious bad livers. Next: 1 Timothy Chapter 2”