Who have erred from the truth, saying, that the resurrection is past already, and have subverted the faith of some.

“"Of whom is Hymeneus and Philetus, Who concerning the truth have erred, saying that the resurrection is past already, and overthrow the faith of some." He has well said, "They will increase unto more ungodliness." For it appears indeed to be a solitary evil, but see what evils spring out of it. For if the Resurrection is already past, not only do we suffer loss in being deprived of that great glory, but because judgment is taken away, and retribution also. For if the Resurrection is past, retribution also is past. The good therefore have reaped persecutions and afflictions, and the wicked have not been punished, nay verily, they live in great pleasure. It were better to say that there is no resurrection, than that it is already past. "And overthrow," he says, "the faith of some." "Of some," not of all. For if there is no resurrection, faith is subverted. Our preaching is vain, nor is Christ risen; and if He is not risen, neither was He born, nor has He ascended into heaven. Observe how this error, while it seems to oppose the doctrine of the Resurrection, draws after it many other evils.”

“Therefore, all who have established a sect of some religion, even a false one, wishing that they be believed, have not been able to deny this resurrection of human souls. All have agreed on that, but many have denied the resurrection of the flesh and have said that resurrection has already taken place in faith.… They said that resurrection had already taken place but in such a way that another was not to be hoped for; and they reproached those who hoped for the resurrection of the flesh, as though the resurrection which had been promised was already fulfilled in the human soul by believing.”

“Above he instructed Timothy, showing the general manner by which unbelievers are to be resisted; here he shows in particular the things which are to be resisted. And first he shows the things which are to be resisted; second, why, at "for they profit much"; third, how, at "youthful." He says therefore, "avoid profane things and vain talk." Here he shows that two things are to be avoided, namely profane things and vain talk, and these refer either to the same thing or to different things. For "profane" things are so called as if far from the shrine, that is, from divine worship, and these are the teachings of heresies; and these are to be avoided, therefore he says "avoid profane things." It can also be said that these "profane" things are those which are contrary to the faith, while "vain talk" is fable-like things. Ps. 11:3: "each one has spoken vain things to his neighbor." Then when he says "for they profit much," he shows why these are to be avoided, and this in two ways. First from the harm which they inflict; second from the fruit of avoiding them, at "if anyone." Concerning the first he does two things, because first he shows how they harm unto the subversion of the faith; second, how they cannot totally subvert the faith, at "but the firm." Likewise, first he sets down the teaching; second he adds a comparison, at "and the word"; third an example, at "of whom is." He says therefore: these things are to be avoided which hinder piety, which is called the worship of God. Hence the doctrine of faith is the doctrine of piety. But impiety is a doctrine against the faith; hence he says "for they profit much unto impiety," that is, they lead to error or to erroneous doctrine. But here "profit" is used, with regard to evils, in an abusive sense. Below 3:13: "evil men and seducers profit unto the worse, erring and sending others into error." Then he sets down a comparison for them, saying "word." For heretics say from the beginning certain true and useful things, but when they are heard, they mix in certain things, which they spew forth, deadly things. And therefore he says "their word," et cetera. Ecclus. 11:34: "from one spark a fire is increased, and from one deceitful man blood is increased." Then when he says "of whom," he sets down an example for this. For these two, in their time, were corrupting the faith. By whom certain ones, erring, were turned to vain talk, et cetera. Concerning Philetus it is said above at 1:15: "all who are in Asia have turned away from me, of whom are Philetus and Hermogenes." But concerning Hymenaeus it is found in 1 Tim. 1:20: "of whom is Hymenaeus." And he says "they have fallen away." 1 John 2:19: "they went out from us." And this aggravates the matter, because 2 Peter 2:21: "for it would have been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than after the knowledge of it to turn back." But they were erring, saying that the resurrection had already taken place. Concerning which, Matt. 27:52: "many bodies of the saints who had slept arose." And they said that there is no other resurrection to be expected, but that they rose then. In another and better way, they said that just as there is a twofold death, so there is a twofold resurrection, namely of the soul and of the body. Concerning the resurrection of the soul it is found in Apoc. 20:6: "blessed and holy is he who has a part in the first resurrection." They said therefore that all things which are said in the Scriptures were to be referred to the resurrection of souls, which has already taken place. Col. 3:1: "if you have risen with Christ, seek the things that are above." And this error exists even today among heretics, and through it they subvert certain people. And fittingly he says "and they have subverted the faith of some," because they destroy the foundation of the faith. Acts 13:10: "O full of all deceit and all cunning, son of the Devil, and enemy of all justice, you do not cease to subvert the right ways of the Lord." Then when he says "but the firm," he shows how the faith is not to be totally subverted through heresies. And first, that through heretical doctrines the whole faith of the Church cannot be corrupted; second he shows why God permits some to err, at "but in a great [house]." Likewise, first he shows the immovability of the faith of the elect; second he adds a demonstration, at "having." He says therefore: they subvert, "but the firm foundation of God stands." For these foundations are those to which the grace of standing immovably is given. Matt. 7:25: "for it was founded upon a firm rock." "Firm," because immovable. Hence it is stated beforehand there at Matt. 7:25, that "the floods came, and the winds blew, and they rushed upon that house, and it did not fall." The firmness of this depends first on divine predestination; second on our free will. And therefore, as to the first, he says: this firm foundation, "having this seal," that is, this is the sign of this firmness. John 3:33: "but he who has received his testimony has sealed that God is true." This is the first part of the seal, namely from divine predestination, "for the Lord knows who are his." And this is the knowledge of divine predestination. John 10:14: "I know my sheep, and I have other sheep, which are not of this fold." Matt. 7:23: "I do not know you." But as to the second he says, "let everyone depart from iniquity who calls upon..." As if to say: if they are predestined by God, it is that through free will they will be saved, because from this — that someone does not finally adhere to sin — he shows himself to be predestined. And he sets down two things, which pertain to the ordination in the state of salvation. The first, that he confess the faith; therefore he says "everyone who," et cetera. Rom. 10:10: "but with the mouth confession is made unto salvation." The second, that he withdraw from sin. Matt. 7:21: "not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' shall enter the kingdom of heaven," et cetera. And therefore he says "let him depart," et cetera. Isa. 55:7: "let the wicked man forsake his way," et cetera. But as to what he says, "calls upon the name," he does not mean that he only names it with the mouth, but inwardly through faith, and outwardly through work. Then when he says "in a great," he sets down the reason why God permits some to err, although he loves all. But this can be understood in two ways, because either in general, or in particular with regard to this one or that one. For if you ask, in a particular case, why he gives to this one the gift of perseverance and not to that one, it has no reason except the will of God alone. Augustine: "why he draws this one, and does not draw that one, do not wish to judge, if you do not wish to err," et cetera. But if you ask in general why he gives to some, and to some not, it has a reason, which the Apostle assigns at Rom. 9:16. And it is the same reason as this one, although through other examples. For therefore he says: "he endured with much patience," et cetera. For according as all the works which God makes in nature and grace are made in order to manifest the glory of God — Ecclus. 42:16: "his work is full of the glory of the Lord" — so also he made diverse creatures, so that the perfection of divine goodness, which cannot be manifested through one, might be sufficiently manifested through another. So also it must be considered concerning one craftsman: in one house there is one window, which is more beautiful than another. If then someone should ask why the whole house is not a window, the reason is that the whole house would be imperfect. Similarly the Apostle says at 1 Cor. 12:17: "if the whole body were an eye, where would the hearing be?" So therefore the Apostle says, in the effect of grace, that it was fitting that God should manifest justice and mercy. For if he saved all, there would be only his mercy; if he damned all, there would be only justice. And therefore, "God willing to manifest wrath," that is, justice, et cetera. And the reason is similar concerning the perfection of the Church, which had to be perfect, that there might not be diversity in it. In which there is a threefold diversity, namely of the good and the evil, of the good and the better, of the evil and the worse. And assigning this he says, "but in a great house," that is, the Church — Bar. 3:24: "O Israel, how great is the house of God, and how vast is the place of his possession" — "there are not only vessels of gold," etc., where the golden and silver are distinguished from the earthen; likewise the silver from the golden; likewise the earthen from the wooden. In the first, a comparison of the good and the evil is implied; in the second, a comparison of the good and the better; in the third, of the evil and the worse. For the golden and silver are the good; but the golden are the better, the silver less good. Similarly the wooden and the earthen are the evil; but the earthen are the worse, while the wooden are less evil. Consequently he designates a diversity as to use, so that the good may be vessels "unto honor," as ones appointed for honorable use; but the evil may be earthen and wooden vessels, as ones appointed "unto dishonor," that is, for base use. For just as among men, certain ones, namely the saints, are as it were precious vessels. Ecclus. 50:10: "a solid vessel of gold," et cetera. Acts 9:15: "this man is a vessel of election to me," et cetera. But some are like useless vessels, namely the evil. Isa. 32:7: "the vessels of the deceitful are most evil." Ecclus. 21:17: "the heart of a fool is like a broken vessel." The first vessels are "unto honor," to which eternal life is owed. Rom. 2:7: "to those indeed who according to the patience of good work seek glory and honor and incorruption, eternal life." The second vessels are "unto dishonor." 1 Kings 2:30: "but those who despise me shall be ignoble." And the aforesaid diversity can otherwise be applied to the diversity of the Church, so that the golden vessels may be the prelates, but the silver, and the wooden, and the earthen may be those holding a lower rank, among whom there is a certain gradation. And what he adds, "some unto honor," etc., is then not to be understood as meaning that all the golden and silver vessels are unto honor, and the earthen unto dishonor, since from whatever state some are saved, and some are damned.”

“Who concerning the truth have erred,.... That is, the two persons just mentioned; they fell from the truth, wandered and departed from it; they did not keep to the Scriptures of truth, but deviated from them; they missed that mark, and went astray into gross errors and mistakes; rejected the Gospel, the word of truth, in general, and particularly in saying, that the resurrection is past already; and no other is to be expected; or that there was no future resurrection of the dead: their error was, as some think, that there is no other resurrection than that of parents in their children, who, though they die, live in their posterity; or than the resurrection of Christ, and of the saints, that rose at the same time; or rather, that there is no other resurrection than the spiritual one, or regeneration, which is a quickening of dead sinners, or the resurrection of them from the death of sin, to a life of grace; which seems to be the truest account of their principle, seeing this is what has been received and propagated by others since; though some have thought that they gave into the Palingenesia of the Pythagoreans, who supposed that when men die, their souls go into other bodies; and that these men imagined, that this is all the resurrection that will be: and others have been of opinion, that their notion was, that whereas the deliverance of the Jews out of the Babylonish captivity is signified by a resurrection of them, in Eze 37:1 that this is the resurrection they meant was past, and no other to be looked for; but that which has been fixed upon seems to be the truest account: and overthrow the faith of some; the Ethiopic version reads, "of many"; that is, of nominal professors of religion; not of true believers, for true faith cannot be overthrown. Hence it follows,”

“Who concerning the truth have erred - They had the truth, but erred or wandered from it, saying the resurrection was already past, and thus denying the resurrection of the body, and, by consequence, future rewards and punishments; and this necessarily sapped the foundation of all religion: and thus the gangrene had, in reference to their unhappy votaries, a rapid and unchecked operation.”

“Saying: That the resurrection is past already. It is uncertain what these heretics meant. Some say they held no resurrection, but that by which some died and some were born. Others that they admitted no resurrection but that by baptism from sin. Others that they called what is related in the gospel, that many bodies of the saints rose, at Christ’s death, the only resurrection. (Witham) — The fall of Hymenæus and Philetus, who seduced by the false reasonings of Simon Magus had abandoned the faith of the Church, convinced St. Paul of the great importance of opposing the profane novelties of heretics. It is for this that he insists so much on this subject, as well in this as in his first epistle to Timothy. The ancients expressly tell us, that Simon the magician did not believe in the resurrection of the body, but only that of the soul; meaning its resurrection from sin to grace. (Epiphanius)”

“erred--Greek, "missed the aim" (see Ti1 6:21). is past already--has already taken place. The beginnings of the subsequent Gnostic heresy already existed. They "wrested" (Pe2 3:16) Paul's own words (Rom 6:4; Eph 2:6; Col 2:12) "to their own destruction," as though the resurrection was merely the spiritual raising of souls from the death of sin. Compare Co1 15:12, where he shows all our hopes of future glory rest on the literal reality of the resurrection. To believe it past (as the Seleucians or Hermians did, according to AUGUSTINE [Epistles, 119.55, To Januarius, 4]), is to deny it in its true sense. overthrow--trying to subvert "the foundation" on which alone faith can rest secure (Ti2 2:19; compare Tit 1:11).”