_THE PUNISHMENT OF HYMENAEUS AND ALEXANDER.--DELIVERING TO SATAN AN
EXCEPTIONAL INSTRUMENT OF PURIFICATION.--THE PERSONALITY OF SATAN._
"Holding faith and a good conscience; which some having thrust from
them made shipwreck: of whom is Hymenaeus and Alexander; whom I
delivered unto Satan, that they might be taught not to
blaspheme."--1 TIM. i. 19, 20.
In the preceding discourse one of the special _charismata_ which
distinguish the Church of the Apostolic age was considered,--the gift of
prophecy. It seems to have been an exceptional boon to enable the first
Christians to perform very exceptional work. On the present occasion we
have to consider a very different subject--the heavy penalty inflicted
on two grievous offenders. This again would seem to be something
exceptional. And the special gift and the special punishment have this
much in common, that both of them were extraordinary means for promoting
and preserving the holiness of the Church. The one existed for the
edification, the other for the purification, of the members of the
Christian community.
The necessity of strict discipline both for the individual and for the
community had been declared by Christ from the outset. The eye that
caused offence was to be plucked out, the hand and the foot that caused
offence were to be cut off, and the hardened offender who refused to
listen to the solemn remonstrances of the congregation was to be treated
as a heathen and an outcast. The experience of the primitive Church had
proved the wisdom of this. The fall of Judas had shown that the
Apostolic band itself was not secure from evil of the very worst kind.
The parent Church of Jerusalem was no sooner founded than a dark stain
was brought upon it by the conduct of two of its members. In the very
first glow of its youthful enthusiasm Ananias and Sapphira conspired
together to pervert the general unselfishness to their own selfish end,
by attempting to gain the credit for equal generosity with the rest,
while keeping back something for themselves. The Church of Corinth was
scarcely five years old, and the Apostle had been absent from it only
about three years, when he learnt that in this Christian community, the
firstfruits of the heathen world, a sin which even the heathen regarded
as a monstrous pollution had been committed, and that the congregation
were glorying in it. Christians were boasting that the incestuous union
of a man with his father's wife during his father's lifetime was a
splendid illustration of Christian liberty. No stronger proof of the
dangers of lax discipline could have been given. In the verses before us
we have instances of similar peril on the doctrinal side. And in the
insolent opposition which Diotrephes offered to St. John we have an
illustration of the dangers of insubordination. If the Christian Church
was to be saved from speedy collapse, strict discipline in morals, in
doctrine, and in government, was plainly necessary.
The punishment of the incestuous person at Corinth should be placed
side by side with the punishment of Hymenaeus and Alexander, as recorded
here. The two cases mutually explain one another. In each of them there
occurs the remarkable formula of _delivering_ or _handing over to
Satan_. The meaning of it is not indisputable, and in the main two views
are held respecting it. Some interpret it as being merely a synonym for
excommunication. Others maintain that it indicates a much more
exceptional penalty, which might or might not accompany excommunication.
1. On the one hand it is argued that the expression "deliver unto Satan"
is a very intelligible periphrasis for "excommunicate." Excommunication
involved "exclusion from all Christian fellowship, and consequently
banishment to the society of those among whom Satan dwelt, and from
which the offender had publicly severed himself."[30] It is admitted
that "handing over to Satan" is strong language to use in order to
express ejection from the congregation and exclusion from all acts of
worship, but it is thought that the acuteness of the crisis makes the
strength of language intelligible.
2. But the strength of language needs no apology, if the "delivering
unto Satan" means something extraordinary, over and above
excommunication. This, therefore, is an advantage which the second mode
of interpreting the expression has at the outset. Excommunication was a
punishment which the congregation itself could inflict; but this handing
over to Satan was an Apostolic act, to accomplish which the community
without the Apostle had no power. It was a supernatural infliction of
bodily infirmity, or disease, or death, as a penalty for grievous sin.
We know this in the cases of Ananias and Sapphira and of Elymas. The
incestuous person at Corinth is probably another instance: for "the
destruction of the flesh" seems to mean some painful malady inflicted on
that part of his nature which had been the instrument of his fall, in
order that by its chastisement the higher part of his nature might be
saved. And, if this be correct, then we seem to be justified in assuming
the same respecting Hymenaeus and Alexander. For although nothing is said
in their case respecting "the destruction of the flesh," yet the
expression "that they may be _taught_ not to blaspheme," implies
something of a similar kind. The word for "taught" =paideuthôsi= implies
discipline and chastisement, sometimes in Classical Greek, frequently in
the New Testament, a meaning which the word "teach" also not
unfrequently has in English (Judges viii. 16). In illustration of this
it is sufficient to point to the passage in Heb. xii., in which the
writer insists that "whom the Lord loveth He _chasteneth_." Throughout
the section this very word (=paideuein=) and its cognate (=paideia=) are
used.[31] It is, therefore, scarcely doubtful that St. Paul delivered
Hymenaeus and Alexander to Satan, in order that Satan might have power to
afflict their bodies (just as he was allowed power over the body of
Job), with a view to their spiritual amelioration. This personal
suffering, following close upon their sin and declared by the Apostle to
be a punishment for it, would teach them to abandon it. St. Paul
himself, as he has just told us, had been a blasphemer and by a
supernatural visitation had been converted: why should not these two
follow in both respects in his steps? Satan's willingness to co-operate
in such measures need not surprise us. He is always ready to inflict
suffering; and the fact that suffering sometimes draws the sufferer away
from him and nearer to God, does not deter him from inflicting it. He
knows well that suffering not unfrequently has the very opposite effect.
It hardens and exasperates some men, while it humbles and purifies
others. It makes one man say "I abhor myself, and repent in dust and
ashes." It makes another will to "renounce God and die." Satan hoped in
Job's case to be able to provoke him to "renounce God to His face." In
the case of these two blasphemers he would hope to induce them to
blaspheme all the more.
We may pass by the question, "In what way did Hymenaeus and Alexander
blaspheme?" We can only conjecture that it was by publicly opposing some
article of the Christian faith. But conjectures without evidence are not
very profitable. If we were certain that the Hymenaeus here mentioned
with Alexander is identical with the one who is condemned with Philetus
in 2 Tim. ii. 18 for virtually denying the resurrection, we should have
some evidence. But this identification, although probable, is not
certain. Still less certain is the identification of the Alexander
condemned here with "Alexander the coppersmith," who in 2 Tim. iv. 14 is
said to have done the Apostle much evil. But none of these questions is
of great moment. What is of importance to notice is the Apostolic
sentence upon the two blasphemers. And in it we have to notice four
points. (1) It is almost certainly not identical with excommunication by
the congregation, although it very probably was accompanied by this
other penalty. (2) It is of a very extraordinary character, being a
handing over into the power of the evil one. (3) Its object is the
reformation of the offenders, while at the same time (4) it serves as a
warning to others, lest they by similar offences should suffer so awful
a punishment. To all alike it brought home the serious nature of such
sins. Even at the cost of cutting off the right hand, or plucking out
the right eye, the Christian community must be kept pure in doctrine as
in life.
These two passages,--the one before us, and the one respecting the case
of incest at Corinth,--are conclusive as to St. Paul's teaching
respecting the existence and personality of the devil. They are
supported and illustrated by a number of other passages in his writings;
as when he tells the Thessalonians that "Satan hindered" his work, or
warns the Corinthians that "even Satan fashioneth himself into an angel
of light," and tells them that his own sore trouble in the flesh was,
like Job's, "a messenger of Satan to buffet" him. Not less clear is the
teaching of St. Peter and St. John in Epistles which, with those of St.
Paul to the Corinthians, are among the best authenticated works in
ancient literature. "Your adversary the devil as a roaring lion, walketh
about, seeking whom he may devour," says the one: "He that doeth sin is
of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning," says the other.
And, if we need higher authority, there is the declaration of Christ to
the malignant and unbelieving Jews. "Ye are of your father the devil,
and the lusts of your father it is your will to do. He was a murderer
from the beginning, and stood not in the truth, because there is no
truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is
a liar, and the father thereof."[32] With regard to this last passage,
those who deny the personal existence of Satan must maintain either (1)
that the Evangelist here attributes to Christ words which He never used;
or (2) that Christ was willing to make use of a monstrous superstition
in order to denounce his opponents with emphasis; or (3) that He Himself
erroneously believed in the existence of a being who was a mere figment
of an unenlightened imagination: in other words, that "the Son of God
was manifested that He might destroy the works of the devil," when all
the while there was no devil and no works of his to be destroyed.
The first of these views cuts at the root of all trust in the Gospels as
historical documents. Words which imply that Satan is a person are
attributed to Christ by the Synoptists no less than by St. John; and if
the Evangelists are not to be believed in their report of Christ's
sayings on this topic, what security have we that they are to be
believed as to their reports of the rest of His teaching; or indeed as
to anything which they narrate? Again, how are we to account for the
very strong statements made by the Apostles themselves respecting the
evil one, if they had never heard anything of the kind from Christ.
The second view has been adopted by Schleiermacher, who thinks that
Christ accommodated His teaching to the ideas then prevalent among the
Jews respecting Satan without sharing them Himself. He knew that Satan
was a mere personification of the moral evil which every man finds in
his own nature and in that of his fellow-men: but the Jews believed in
the personality of this evil principle, and He acquiesced in the
belief, not as being true, but as offering no fundamental opposition to
His teaching. But is this consistent with the truthfulness of Christ? If
a personal devil is an empty superstition, He went out of his way to
confirm men in their belief in it. Why teach that the enemy who sowed
the tares is the devil? Why interpret the birds that snatch away the
freshly sown seed as Satan? It would have been so easy in each case to
have spoken of impersonal temptations. Again, what motive can Christ
have had for telling His _Apostles_ (not the ignorant and superstitious
multitude), that He Himself had endured the repeated solicitations of a
personal tempter, who had conversed and argued with Him?
Those who, like Strauss and Renan, believe Jesus of Nazareth to have
been a mere man, would naturally adopt the third view. In believing in
the personality of Satan Jesus merely shared the superstitions of His
age. To all those who wish to discuss with him whether we are still
Christians, Strauss declares that "the belief in a devil is one of the
most hideous sides of the ancient Christian faith," and that "the extent
to which this dangerous delusion still controls men's ideas or has been
banished from them is the very thing to regard as a measure of culture."
But at the same time he admits that "to remove so fundamental a stone is
dangerous for the whole edifice of the Christian faith. It was the young
Goethe who remarked against Bahrdt that if ever an idea was biblical,
this one [of the existence of a personal Satan] was such."[33] And
elsewhere Strauss declares that the conception of the Messiah and His
kingdom without the antithesis of an infernal kingdom with a personal
chief is as impossible as that of North pole without a South pole.[34]
To refuse to believe in an evil power external to ourselves is to
believe that human nature itself is diabolical. Whence come the devilish
thoughts that vex us even at the most sacred and solemn moments? If they
do not come from the evil one and his myrmidons, they come from
ourselves:--they are our own offspring. Such a belief might well drive
us to despair. So far from being a "hideous" element in the Christian
faith, the belief in a power, "_not ourselves_, that makes for"
wickedness, is a most consoling one. It has been said that, if there
were no God, we should have to invent one: and with almost equal truth
we might say that, if there were no devil, we should have to invent one.
Without a belief in God bad men would have little to induce them to
conquer their evil passions. Without a belief in a devil good men would
have little hope of ever being able to do so.
The passage before us supplies us with another consoling thought with
regard to this terrible adversary, who is always invisibly plotting
against us. It is often _for our own good_ that God allows him to have
an advantage over us. He is permitted to inflict loss upon us through
our persons and our property, as in the case of Job, and the woman whom
he bowed down for eighteen years, in order to chasten us and teach us
that "we have not here an abiding city." And he is permitted even to
lead us into sin, in order to save us from spiritual pride, and to
convince us that apart from Christ and in our own strength we can do
nothing. These are not Satan's motives, but they are God's motives in
allowing him to be "the ruler of this world," and to have much power
over human affairs. Satan inflicts suffering from love of inflicting it,
and leads into sin from love of sin: but God knows how to bring good out
of evil by making the evil one frustrate his own wiles. The devil
malignantly afflicts souls that come within his power; but the
affliction leads to those souls being "saved in the day of the Lord." It
had that blessed effect in the case of the incestuous person at Corinth.
Whether the same is true of Hymenaeus and Alexander, there is nothing in
Scripture to tell us. It is for us to take care that in our case the
chastisements which inevitably follow upon sin do not drive us further
and further into it, but teach us to sin no more.
FOOTNOTES:
[30] Dr. David Brown in Schaff's _Popular Commentary_, iii., p. 180.
[31] Heb. xii. 5, 11; comp. 1 Cor. xi. 32; 2 Cor. vi. 9; 2 Tim. ii. 25;
Luke xxiii. 16, 22: Soph., _Ajax_ 595; Xen., _Mem._ I. iii. 5.
[32] 1 Thess. ii. 18; 2 Cor. xi. 14, xii. 7; 1 Pet. v. 8; 1 John iii. 8;
John viii. 44.
[33] Strauss, _Der alte und der neue Glaube_, p. 22.
[34] Herzog und Plitt, XV. p. 361.