John Calvin Commentary 1 Timothy 1:20

"of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to blaspheme." — 1 Timothy 1:20 (ASV)

Of whom are Hymenaeus and Alexander. The former will be mentioned again in the Second Epistle, in which the kind of “shipwreck” he made is also described; for he said that the resurrection was past (2 Timothy 2:17–18). There is reason to believe that Alexander also was bewitched by an error so absurd. And should we wonder today, if any are deceived by the various enchantments of Satan, when we see that one of Paul’s companions perished by so dreadful a fall?

He mentions both of them to Timothy as persons whom he knew. For my own part, I have no doubt that this is the same Alexander that Luke mentions, and who attempted, but without success, to quell the commotion. He was an Ephesian, and we have said that this Epistle was written chiefly for the Ephesians. We now learn what his end was; and hearing it, let us keep possession of our faith with a good conscience, that we may hold it safe to the last.

Whom I have delivered to Satan. As I mentioned in the exposition of another passage (1 Corinthians 5:5), there are some who interpret this to mean that extraordinary chastisement was inflicted on those persons; and they view this as referring to δυνάμεις, “the powers” mentioned by Paul in the same Epistle (1 Corinthians 12:28).

For, as the apostles were endowed with the gift of healing to testify to God’s favor and kindness toward the godly, so also against wicked and rebellious persons they were armed with power, either to deliver them to the devil to be tormented or to inflict other chastisements on them.

Peter gave a display of this “power” with Ananias and Sapphira (Acts 5:1), and Paul with the magician Bar-Jesus (Acts 13:6). But, for my own part, I prefer to explain it as relating to excommunication; for the opinion that the incestuous Corinthian received any chastisement other than excommunication is not supported by any probable conjecture.

And, if Paul delivered him to Satan by excommunicating him, why should not the same expression have a similar meaning in this passage? Besides, this explains the force of excommunication very well; for since Christ holds the seat of His kingdom in the Church, outside the Church there is nothing but the dominion of Satan.

Accordingly, he who is cast out of the Church must be placed for a time under the tyranny of Satan, until, being reconciled to the Church, he returns to Christ. I make one exception: that, on account of the enormity of the offense, he might have pronounced a sentence of perpetual excommunication against them; but on that point I would not venture to make a positive assertion.

That they may learn not to blaspheme. What is the meaning of this last clause? For one who has been cast out of the Church often takes greater freedom for himself to act because, being freed from the yoke of ordinary discipline, he breaks out into louder insolence.

I reply, to whatever extent they may indulge in their wickedness, yet the gate will be shut against them, so that they will not contaminate the flock. For the greatest injury done by wicked men occurs when they mingle with others under the pretense of holding the same faith.

The power of doing injury is taken from them when they are branded with public infamy, so that no one is so simple as not to know that these are irreligious and detestable men, and therefore their company is shunned by all. Sometimes, too, it happens that—being struck down by this mark of disgrace which has been put upon them—they become less daring and obstinate; and therefore, although this remedy sometimes renders them more wicked, yet it is not always ineffectual for subduing their fierceness.