1 Timothy 1:20

Ver. 20. Of whom (the apostle adds) is Hymenaeus and Alexander. Both these names occur again in an unfavourable connection (Hymenaeus in 2 Timothy 2:17, and Alexander in 2 Timothy 4:14); and it is a question among commentators, whether the same persons are in each case denoted by them. In regard to Hymenaeus, there seems no proper reason for doubting the identity. For the name was by no means a common one; and that it should have been borne by two different persons, both in the same locality, and both exhibiting heretical tendencies, so near the beginning of the church, is against all probability. It has been alleged against this view (by Mosheim and others), that the Hymenaeus in the second epistle is spoken of in milder terms than the one here in the later reference only as a dangerous errorist to be shunned, in the earlier as one cast out like “an abominable branch” from the communion of the faithful. But the different aspects under which the subject is contemplated in the two places, sufficiently account for the different sort of representation employed in each. In the second reference it is his erroneous teaching which is brought into prominence, and which is characterized as a denying of the doctrine of the resurrection, and a consequent overthrowing of the faith of those who listened to it, in that point of view, surely, a strong enough statement, since it denounces Hymenaeus as erring in regard to one of the cardinal doctrines of Christianity, and thereby undermining what he should have striven to establish. Here, however, it is the diseased moral state of the man himself, and the disciplinary treatment which it called for, if there was to be any chance of arresting its progress, and saving him from perdition. But this representation concerning the person is no way incompatible with what is afterwards said respecting the doctrine. Both notices are brief; they give us only the more prominent features; but the probability is, from what we otherwise know, that the denial doctrinally of the literal resurrection was far from standing alone, that it was simply an indication of that pretentious spiritualistic Gnosticism, which had its worst effect in the moral sophistication it wrought in the heart distorting men's views of the divine life, and blunting their consciences as to the essential distinctions between right and wrong, holiness and sin. The Alexander who is here coupled with Hymenaeus may or may not be the same person who is mentioned in Second Timothy, designated there as the coppersmith, and a personal enemy of the apostle, “who did him much harm.” The name was a very common one, and may have belonged to several persons in the same church or neighbourhood at the period the apostle wrote. It tells also somewhat against the identification, that while both Hymenaeus and Alexander reappear in the second epistle as the names of false disciples, they are no longer connected together. Philetus is there associated with Hymenaeus; and Alexander is mentioned alone, and apparently as a worker of evil, not at Ephesus, but in Rome, though it is possible enough he may have belonged to the region of Asia. Our materials are too scanty to enable us to draw more definite conclusions.

How had the apostle dealt with such offenders? Whom (says he ) I delivered over to Satan, that they might he disciplined (or taught by chastisement) not to blaspheme. The verb παιδεύω, though its primary meaning was to educate or train up, and it is sometimes so used in the New Testament (as in Acts 7:22), yet usually bears, both in the Sept. and in the New Testament, the sense of scourging, correcting, or chastising with a view to reformation and improvement (Luke 23:16; Luke 23:22; Hebrews 12:6-7; 1 Corinthians 11:32; 2 Corinthians 6:9, etc.). A severe schooling of some sort is therefore meant here a subduing and corrective discipline, having for its object the recovery of the persons subjected to it from their grievous backsliding, and being made to cease from blaspheming, that is, misrepresenting and calumniating: the truth of God. But what is to be understood of the kind of discipline itself, expressed in the very solemn and peculiar phraseology of delivering them over to Satan? It might seem as if this, were it really effected, must have precluded all hope of a better future, and was like consigning the parties concerned to utter perdition. So doubtless it would, if, according to the doctrine of Scripture and the truth of things, Satan were an absolutely independent as well as hostile power, who had an indefeasible right to retain whatever was given as a prey into his hand. But such is by no means the case. Satan is but a creature and an instrument one who has a definite sphere to occupy and a power to exercise, in relation to the purposes of God's moral government, but still only of a subordinate and ministerial kind. Thus, in Old Testament times. Job was for a season left to be bruised and afflicted by Satan; only, however, for a season, and in order that he might through the fiery ordeal be raised to a higher purity and a more serene bliss. David, also, in a time of carnal pride and security, was allowed to be tempted by Satan, so as to be thereby drawn into the vortex of severe retributory judgments, yet with the ultimate design of having the flesh destroyed and the spirit raised to a nobler elevation (1 Chronicles 21:1; Psalms 30). In New Testament Scripture we are met with the numerous demoniacs on whom our Lord so frequently exercised His healing power; cases, indeed, respecting which as a whole we have very imperfect information, while yet we have no reason to doubt that in most, if not all of them, the demoniacal agency was of the nature of a chastisement, and was rendered subservient to great moral purposes for the individuals affected by it (see Matthew 12:43-45). Still more nearly allied, perhaps, to the point in hand, was the giving up of Peter and his fellow-disciples to Satan for a season, that they might, for their obstinate blindness and corruption, be sifted as wheat (Luke 22:31-32). It was doubtless on the basis of such considerations and examples that St. Paul acted here, as previously, in a somewhat parallel case, at Corinth (1 Corinthians 5:5). In respect to that earlier occasion he told the Corinthians, since they had failed in their duty concerning it, that “in the name of the Lord Jesus he had adjudged the offending person to Satan for the destruction of the flesh:” he had done it by virtue of his apostolic function, yet so that the church might bring it home to the party concerned; as in this case also the church at Ephesus would certainly have to indorse and act upon the apostle's judgment. The infliction in both cases is purposely left general; its object rather than its nature is indicated: it was for the destruction of the flesh. But this might partly be accomplished by the shame and mortification of a formal removal from the flock and guardianship of Christ to the desert world, partly by inward remorse and sorrow on account of the guilt incurred, by the sense of forlornness and desolation produced, and possibly also by some outward tribulations sickness of body, or calamities of life as salutary warnings and preludes of coming wrath. For the working of such bitter experiences Satan was the proper instrument the antinomy, indeed, in his aim and immediate action of the Spirit of God, whose presence ever makes itself felt in all peace, and joy, and blessing; yet an antinomy which is capable of being turned by the benignant will and controlling agency of God into an ultimate harmony; since the destruction of the flesh effected by the one class of operations might through the other become a fit preparation for awakening in the soul convictions of sin and longings for salvation. So that the delivering to Satan was in the apostle's intention and desire only an expedient for accomplishing a spiritual cure. It was the most solemn form of excommunication, and betokened that those against whom it was employed were in a most perilous condition trembling on the brink of final impenitence, and if capable of being saved at all, saved only as by fire. The form, indeed, was such that it seems to have been regarded as fit for none but an apostle to use, as if he alone had the spiritual discernment to perceive when it should be done, or the authority requisite for doing it with effect. Hence, however common excommunication was in the ancient church, the authorities did not presume to give it this form, not even in the case of the greatest offenders (see Bingham, Ant. B. xvi. c. 2). At the same time, there can be no doubt that the apostolic practice in this respect tended materially to sustain the ancient church in enforcing that stringent discipline by which she was so long distinguished, but which was ultimately carried to an excess that ministered to prevailing errors.